ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 68

[Cindizzi]

Y’all it does not apply to witnesses, victims or family members.

It applies to any attorneys representing witnesses, victims or family members.

https://d31hzlhk6di2h5.cloudfront.net/20230119/57/08/75/fd/cafa4f916f91f0722c38a4cf/Amended_Nondissemination_Order.pdf

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I disagree slightly. If someone contacts me and gives me their actual identity and wants to talk about this case, I'm listening. I do believe SG knows something and I will never stop listening to the voices of the victim's families or to members of the communities affected by crime.

None of what people are saying on SM is going to have massive influence on the trial. Sure, it's possible that one person who is incapable of following the rules of court might get seated on the jury, but that can happen with or without people making public comment.

Public comment on public life must be permitted. It's odd to even have the conversation.

I can know things that aren't in court filings. WS has rules, but the rules of WS are not the entire rules of epistemology (which are under separate debate). I do know things that are not in court filings. Most of us do.

I see your point and I agree that social media will probably not have an influence. But leaking investigation information to mainstream media is--I think--an abuse of the grace we should and do extend to grieving families. Of course, we should listen to the voices of the families but not--NOT--at the expense of giving the accused a fair trial, including the prosecution's shot at convicting a mass killer.

I have zero problem with anyone here or on Reddit or Twitter speaking up about the case. That is, indeed "public comment on public life." I have a big problem with the grandstanding attorneys of any stripe who are either involved with the case or repping those who are leaking stuff to the mainstream media for their own purposes. Once the trial starts, anyone can comment on this aspect of public life; it's just irresponsible for principles in the case or their representative to comment before trial. MOO. I lived with a reporter for a decade and he knew many things he never printed because publishing what he knew was not in the public interest, e.g., knowing who was a suspect in a crime before the arrest, when publishing would have allowed the criminal to flee.

And--a big MOO here--I don't think I have a right to know everything the police, the prosecution or the defense may know before trial. It's not uncommon to have some conflict between two Constitutional rights; conflicts between the freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion go back to the founding. Freedom of speech can be curtailed if said speech endangers the public (crying "fire" in a crowded theater is the usual example).

 

[al66pine]

Got it. So, as long as he's not representing the family, he might be ok?

Edited to say - I'm sorry, I totally blew it! SG the attorney, not the father.

@maconrich
My memory fails me ATM.
Who is SG the atty & who does SG represent?
Anyone?

 

[XtremeScorpio]

I too am fatigued, but that appears to be a screen shot of just the first page. I'll try and find the rest when I am able.

But I trust you. If in fact the two survivors and all the families of the victims are enjoined from speaking, I do understand why SG hired an attorney (but he needs a different one, if he's reading).

It's a misstep by the judge, if you ask me (and I have no idea whether both sides agreed - maybe they did).

I think a gag order might extend to a citizen if the information came from an embargoed source, but seriously, the parents of these murdered kids can't talk unless they're certain the person they are talking to won't "disseminate" their information. I call BS on that. I'm sure it's happened before, but the rest of us don't have to like it.

All it does is push people to go outside the jurisdiction (Twitter, TikTok, etc) and make a bigger deal out of everything. Again, if my child was murdered, I'd be happy to go to jail for my freedom to talk about it - if a judge told me I couldn't, I wouldn't obey. I would use my own sense and feeling and I think victims' families should be able to. I don't see any Supreme Court or Federal District Court rulings supporting this judge's decision (and she probably won't be the judge throughout the whole case, especially if both media and the families sue - it just spends more resources that could be spent on actually finding justice for the four victims).

I understand why many reports (autopsy especially) ought not to be public, but I think the families already have those reports and have been circumspect and responsible - let them continue in that way.

I did go back and read it, and yes it's only a partial. I also could see why it could have been construed to include vics and their families (when it references 'all other parties to the case, including but not limited to LE, investigators.....'.

FTR, I do agree that it does not include the victims & their families; just their attorneys. So no need to locate the complete order. Thanks anyway.

 

[twall]

In short: the tweet headline is wrong.

I agree wholly with your interpretation.

I in fact think it may be a First Amendment violation to tell the families they cannot speak if they wish to.

It was done in the Abigail Williams/Liberty German case but Indiana is as conservative and tight lipped as you can get. JMO COD is still unknown!

Judge issues gag order in Delphi double murder case

A special judge has issued a gag order in the Delphi double murder case.The order prohibits all parties, counsel, law enforcement officials, court personnel, co

wsbt.com

 

[XtremeScorpio]

But now people are saying it applies to all the families (how many degrees out, I wonder?) and any victims (so, the roommates - and their boyfriends? and the boyfriends of the victims? ultimately, this far reach of a gag order (if true) would begin to encompass many people.

How do I know who is connected to the case? If someone contacts me and says they saw BK do X, is that person "connected to the case" by virtue of laying eyes on BK?

Right now, is it your understanding that the parents and siblings are all prohibited from speaking to the press?

A-HA.... now you see why I commented about it being a matter of time before it extends to US. Lol

 

[10ofRods]

<modsnip: condescending toward fellow poster>

I did go back and read it, and yes it's only a partial. I also could see why it could have been construed to include vics and their families (when it references 'all other parties to the case, including but not limited to LE, investigators.....'.

FTR, I do agree that it does not include the victims & their families; just their attorneys. So no need to locate the complete order. Thanks anyway.

I appreciate your diligence (I now have the order). I think we agree it does not include families or others (Mad Greek employees). I hope you help me hold the line on this over the next few days, <modsnip>

I do see how it was construed that way - but legal language is specific here. If it HAD been this larger group, what an amazing challenge to our constitution that would have been. The Moscow DA is not unversed in the law nor is the judge.

 

[drmrgrl]

IMO, I am curious about the diamond soled shoes. Where are they?

 

[10ofRods]

A-HA.... now you see why I commented about it being a matter of time before it extends to US. Lol

It won't, as long as people their constitutional rights (which they do). Heck, any of us should learn how to challenge such a bizarre decision.

Fortunately, groups of journalists stand at the ready and DO file lawsuits to counter any judicial over reach.

I doubt I'll get sanctions in my lifetime for speaking what I know. And I don't think you will either.

 

[twall]

@maconrich
My memory fails me ATM.
Who is SG the atty & who does SG represent?
Anyone?

Shannon Gray represents the Goncalves family.

 

[Cindizzi]

@maconrich
My memory fails me ATM.
Who is SG the atty & who does SG represent?
Anyone?

This guy is SG who represents KG family who’s Dad initials are also SG.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1610369126479929346

 

[XtremeScorpio]

That isn't how I'm reading it. I read it as:

"New: A Latah County Magistrate has issued a new and more strict gag order in Bryan Kohberger’s case prohibiting attorneys for witnesses, (attorneys for) victims, and (attorneys for) their families from speaking about the case."

MOO.

Yeah, as I stated in another reply, I could kind of see how it could be construed to extend to victims & their families but I don't think that's the case. MOO

 

[Rigatoni999]

People, READ:

An updated gag order has been issued...

Attorneys for...
Attorneys for...
Attorneys for...

That's it.

 

[XtremeScorpio]

It won't, as long as people their constitutional rights (which they do). Heck, any of us should learn how to challenge such a bizarre decision.

Fortunately, groups of journalists stand at the ready and DO file lawsuits to counter any judicial over reach.

I doubt I'll get sanctions in my lifetime for speaking what I know. And I don't think you will either.

I agree

 

[10ofRods]

IMO, I am curious about the diamond soled shoes. Where are they?

At the bottom of the Snake River. My guess.

 

[maconrich]

@maconrich
My memory fails me ATM.
Who is SG the atty & who does SG represent?
Anyone?

Shanon Gray is the attorney and he represents the family of KG

 

[XtremeScorpio]

In short: the tweet headline is wrong.

I agree wholly with your interpretation.

I in fact think it may be a First Amendment violation to tell the families they cannot speak if they wish to.

Agreed! The headline was misleading. So let's move forward with the understanding that the new, amended, gag order includes only the ATTORNEYS for the vics and their families.

Deal?


edited for spelling

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The ex-staffer at Mad Greek has a 1st amendment right to speak to anyone, including a reporter, about anything he knows. If he can provide corroboration of some kind, that's better, of course. But if not, believing him is a judgment call by media consumers.

Correct. I didn't say otherwise. Not sure if you misunderstood what I was saying. I said I'm wary of the story of the MG employee. In a completely separate post, I talked about how it isn't wise for the families of the victims to tell reporters things about the investigation. Somehow, the two posts were conflated and I feel like many misunderstood what I said.

Employers in the U.S. have no legal right to tell employees what they can or cannot say to the media. Of course, they do so anyway.

We haven't seen any LE-released evidence from Mad Greek.

It's important to allow "hot leads" into the public sphere IMO. I would not like living in a society where legal threats to silence rights to speech were the norm.

Reference: Private employers: You can’t forbid your workers from talking to journalists

Private employers: You can't forbid your workers from talking to journalists - Poynter

From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.

www.poynter.org

MOO, etc.....

I never said nor disagreed with any of the above.

MOO.

 

[layer]

Again, if my child was murdered, I'd be happy to go to jail for my freedom to talk about it - if a judge told me I couldn't, I wouldn't obey. I would use my own sense and feeling and I think victims' families should be able to.

I agree, I have always felt like there is a first ammendment case to be made when gag orders extend beyond the usual parties - LE, witnesses, victims, prosecutors, defense attorneys, investigators etc. Frankly, I even find those restrictions troubling.

When first I read that the gag order in the Delphi case extended to the families I was shocked and disturbed. Maybe it's common, but I don't recall seeing it before.

In this case it is not as explicitly laid out as it is in the Delphi case. Having read it several times, each time I read it I come away less certain of whether or not it applies to the families. Maybe I'm fatigued too.

Having said that, I also agree with this:

there is zero benefit for the family speaking to the press, other than to memorialize their lost loved ones to keep their humanity and our loss front and center. But talking about evidence, what LE is doing or not doing, or repeating what they hear about BK puts a conviction at risk.

There is real wisdom there. I just feel that constitutional rights are more important than convictions.

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, didn't play one on TV, didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night...

 

[Sundog]

Does it also apply to the attorney in Pa?

I don't think a gag order issued by a judge in Idaho would apply to an attorney in Pennsylvania. And the attorney in PA isn't representing anyone related to the case now, AFAIK.