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

[Petunia83]

AND, one other question…

Your right to free speech, like ALL rights, ends when it impinges on someone else's right(s). One absolutely has a right to free speech, but not at the expense of curtailing justice for other victims and society at large.

Wait, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to sound dumb, I went back and I read through the thread and I may be misunderstanding a bit so wanted to clarify… when you speak of impinging on someone else’s rights, are you specifically referring to BK’s rights? Again, sorry if it sounds like a dumb question, I’m just trying to make sure I follow. Appreciate it.

 

[Petunia83]

Thanks for sharing that! The lie always gets more attention than the truth.

I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a moment — not to argue, but just to pose the question… Why do we automatically believe the owner, over the server who no longer works there and gave this information to the press? Isn’t it just as plausible that the owner’s side of the story is false? I can think of several reasons why an owner of an establishment may not want this kind of press. I’m not accusing anyone of anything I’m just saying I can see motives a business owner would have for not wanting this kind of publicity. And, isn’t it possible that the server who spoke to the press, who gave them this information about BK being there could be telling the truth and the owner could simply have been unaware of the incidents? Maybe not in the restaurant that day, or no one thought much of it at the time so the owner didn’t make any kind of mental note about it. Like, in essence, couldn’t they both be telling the truth just based on the extent of information that each of them personally has? Does that make sense? Again, I’m not trying to argue with anybody or argue in favor of one or the other… I’m just suggesting maybe it’s not so black and white?

 

[rahod1]

I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a moment — not to argue, but just to pose the question… Why do we automatically believe the owner, over the server who no longer works there and gave this information to the press? Isn’t it just as plausible that the owner’s side of the story is false? I can think of several reasons why an owner of an establishment may not want this kind of press. I’m not accusing anyone of anything I’m just saying I can see motives a business owner would have for not wanting this kind of publicity. And, isn’t it possible that the server who spoke to the press, who gave them this information about BK being there could be telling the truth and the owner could simply have been unaware of the incidents? Maybe not in the restaurant that day, or no one thought much of it at the time so the owner didn’t make any kind of mental note about it. Like, in essence, couldn’t they both be telling the truth just based on the extent of information that each of them personally has? Does that make sense? Again, I’m not trying to argue with anybody or argue in favor of one or the other… I’m just suggesting maybe it’s not so black and white?

Spokesperson (owner?) called the employee a liar...period. Said story was *NOT TRUE*. Can't get more polarized on this story . MOO

 

[rahod1]

Thanks for sharing that! The lie always gets more attention than the truth.

Do we have evidence that this is a LIE?

 

[Helechawagirl]

Unknown, it would depend on court scheduling and prosecution/defense requests for more time. Frankly I expect a plea deal.

Why would the prosecution offer a plea deal? They’re holding all the Aces and his victims didn’t get to live; he shouldn’t either. JMO

 

[Helechawagirl]

Spokesperson (owner?) called the employee a liar...period. Said story was *NOT TRUE*. Can't get more polarized on this story . MOO

I never believed owner. No way she can state he was never there. JMO

 

[Petunia83]

The judge has refused to clarify. It certainly looks like it does apply to the family members and we sure haven't seen any of them come out and disprove that interpretation. If they can gag family members in the Delphi case they can do it anywhere.

On the Court's motion, in response to defendant's undated "Press Release", the Court issues an
order granting the State's Motion for Order Prohibiting the Parties, Counsel, Law Enforcement
Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and Family Members from Disseminating Information or
Releasing Any Extra-Judicial Statements by Means of Public Communication in whole, pending
hearing which the Court has just recently scheduled for January 13, 2023, at. 10:00 a.m. in the Carroll
Circuit Court.

@layer … you’re hilarious… I just saw the very bottom of your post where it says “I ask the dumb questions so you don’t have to” - hahahaha, I feel like my own posts should totally come with that disclaimer most of the time…

OK, so getting to my comment, which is my own humble opinion I’ll add, before everybody jumps on me and gets mad at what I have to say… But I think it is just total crap and unfair that a family can be silenced from discussing their murdered loved one. It makes me super PO’d actually… because the thing is, they are already the victims, and ultimately, if the family does speak of their loved one in some capacity, it’s up to the court to decide if what the family said is or is not in violation of the gag order… then that’s where I think it can get a little sticky and there could be potential for a little too much overreach.

You know, God bless us that we live in a country where we are all innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time… If you were members of the family of the victims in the Delphi murders… or the victims of the Idaho murders? How would you feel if you were told that your right to free speech about your own murdered child was being curbed, on top of EVERYTHING ELSE you were dealing with. It just sucks all around, for everyone, really.

 

[PrairieWind]

Why would the prosecution offer a plea deal? They’re holding all the Aces and his victims didn’t get to live; he shouldn’t either. JMO

Oh there are a lot of reasons for a plea deal. But we are a long ways from that right now.

 

[Helechawagirl]

True! Since he is an insomniac and was bored at night he might have stalked, staked out several neighbors, and houses, and researched if the houses had alarms, and security cameras too.
I knew a guy who stalked women and men in the '90s BEFORE Instagram and FB, and he would fixate on a person he saw in public anywhere, a bar, a store, grocery store then follow them home, take note of the address then spend weeks, months years stalking them because he was BORED and was an INSOMNIAC.
He admitted this behavior to me because he assumed all men do this BEFORE they decide to ask a woman out on a date.
He kept notebooks filled with info he'd befriend their friends and learn everything about them.
He thought it romantic and he was a secret admirer but he was a STALKER. He creeped me out. He later admitted to breaking in and stealing garments or reading their journals, So he did NOT fear entering their homes!
He was later caught breaking into his ex's apt but cops let him go because he said he was heartbroken.
He was accused later in the disappearance of a woman in the PNW.
In Brian's mind, he probably ASSUMES his behavior is normal and within his right to observe others. Or he is aware his behavior scares people and learned to NOT discuss it with anyone except maybe another creepy guy like a close friend or cousin etc...

One of the things he (alledgedly) wrote as a teenager was that visual snow was not as bothersome at nighttime. JMO

 

[Nova]

I have no problem believing her. Why not? She's not an anonymous source.

I don't DISbelieve her. I have no idea whether BK ever ate at her restaurant or not.

But she is making a sweeping, negative statement, one which is impossible for her (or anyone except BK) to know for certain.

And she has a vested interest in not having her business associated with an alleged killer.

Of course, I don't know her, but neither of those factors inspires confidence in her assertion.

 

[Strong1]

Oh there are a lot of reasons for a plea deal. But we are a long ways from that right now.

Could the families push for a plea deal to avoid reliving this in court and in public? If so could the prosecution override that? Who makes the final decision to accept the plea?

 

[squareandrabbet]

I don’t think the order prevents family members from talking, it prevents lawyers, police, investigators, their clerks and associates from feeding them inside information.
I also don’t think anymore inside information is being shared with any attorneys that are not assigned to work this case as it is now prohibited [without authorization from the court = extrajudicial].

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The attorneys for any interested party in this case, including the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and any attorney representing a witness, victim, or victim‘s family, as well as the parties to the above entitled action, including but not limited to investigators, law enforcement personal, and agents for the prosecuting attorney or defense attorney, are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements (written or oral) concerning this case, except, without additional comment, a quotation from or reference to the official public record of the case.

AMENDED NONDISSEMINATION ORDER

I agree.

The "party" is the State of Idaho... which means the AG's office.

For safety sake; it also might mean anyone that the State or BK's attorney Might bring in to testify as part of their case, should err on the side of caution when speaking in public.

 

[want2solveit]

So where is the knife? Is it in the trunk? When he dumps everything he can see the knife and it's unsheathed, others here say it's unsafe uncovered. Surely he must notice it then.

Obviously, the cops are dead certain they have the sole killer in custody. If his attorney gets him off is the time to worry. That won't mean he's innocent.As far as releasing everything they know, the defense will receive whatever is legally required in the Discovery process. For the community being at risk by a supposed at large murderer, I would hope the 4 King St. victims serve as a lesson to be more vigilant, as we all need to be. Be very cautious of your social media profile and personal details, always be aware of what's happening around you, pay attention to detail and always lock All windows and doors.
lock all windows and doors. Most of us can think ways we can improve and be safer. I will make a police report from now on of any creepy event, etc. Creating a paper trail is good.The Fox image (below) is of a front bedroom in the King Road house. Didn't Ethan have a front bedroom? That is blood in so much quantity, it leaked through the floorboards to the outside of the house. If bk is found guilty, I hope he gets the dp.

None of the injuries were fully covered in the PCA and I would suggest that it's impossible to speculate as the the nature of any of their injuries without an autopsy report.

Everybody seems to believe that you will hear people shout or vocalize when they are fighting for their lives but I assure you that is not the case.

Not directed at any individual but there seems to be a continual unertone that E coulda/woulda/shoulda saved the day simply because of his size and athletic ability, which strikes me as a painfully unfair stereotype that taints the memory of a seemingly terrific young man, considering he was also unarmed and his killer had the advantage of an extremely dangerous weapon and the element of surprise.

 

[TeaTime]

Why would the prosecution offer a plea deal? They’re holding all the Aces and his victims didn’t get to live; he shouldn’t either. JMO

Life in prison in exchange for taking the DP off the table is a no brainer. It saves manpower, money and frees up the docket so more cases get heard.

 

[Zella]

Didn't Ethan have a front bedroom?

Technically, Ethan didn't have a bedroom in the house.

 

[Cool Cats]

I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a moment — not to argue, but just to pose the question… Why do we automatically believe the owner, over the server who no longer works there and gave this information to the press? Isn’t it just as plausible that the owner’s side of the story is false? I can think of several reasons why an owner of an establishment may not want this kind of press. I’m not accusing anyone of anything I’m just saying I can see motives a business owner would have for not wanting this kind of publicity. And, isn’t it possible that the server who spoke to the press, who gave them this information about BK being there could be telling the truth and the owner could simply have been unaware of the incidents? Maybe not in the restaurant that day, or no one thought much of it at the time so the owner didn’t make any kind of mental note about it. Like, in essence, couldn’t they both be telling the truth just based on the extent of information that each of them personally has? Does that make sense? Again, I’m not trying to argue with anybody or argue in favor of one or the other… I’m just suggesting maybe it’s not so black and white?

Extremely good point. What if the owner lied, or not necessarily lied, but just never saw BK come in and all the remaining staff says they didn't see him come in? How does the owner know the former employee did not see BK come in?

On the other hand, it is a little bit suspicious to me that only one employee is saying they saw BK. Wouldn't there be at least ONE other employee who saw him?

If it is true that BK "stood out" because he wanted to make sure the food in his order did not come in contact with animal products, then wouldn't the person who took his order have checked with the chef and kitchen staff about this?

Did this employee even take his order?

Both the former employee and the restaurant owner only speak for themselves, a "he-said she-said" type of scenario. Be more credible if more people spoke up about it.

Does it even matter?

It matters to people because it places BK in the same place as a victim - if he was there. And if he was there It makes people wonder these 3 things:

1.) Was it purely coincidence that BK was in a place where a victim worked?

2.) Did BK only go to that restaurant because he was stalking the victim?

3.) Did BK first notice the victim only from the restaurant and then started stalking the victim?

 

[Jealoushe]

I wonder what BK's dad thought watching his son clean the interior of his car excessively for 5 hours...and then not even wash the outside.

and knowing he drove a white Elantra and lived close to the murders. It was pretty sus.

 

[Zella]

On the other hand, it is a little bit suspicious to me that only one employee is saying they saw BK. Wouldn't there be at least ONE other employee who saw him?

It's possible someone else working there saw him and, for whatever reason, has decided to not go to the media with it.

Personally, I think it's impossible to know with the information we have whether the source is lying to People or whether the restaurant owner is lying or whether they're both telling the truth as far as they know. I've had customer service jobs where I as the employee was much more aware of what was happening day to day on the ground than the person who was in charge just because they were holed up in their office running things. If he was there while the owner was doing owner things a few months ago and paid cash, there'd be no way to know unless they had surveillance someone had gone through methodically.

It's also entirely possible the source thinks they saw someone who looked like BK and thinks they ordered vegan food, and their imagination has gone wild.

I lean toward it being about 50/50 that he was there and the source thinking they're telling the truth, even if they aren't, and the owner also thinking they're telling the truth, even if they aren't. MOO

 

[Gemmie]

How would you feel if you were told that your right to free speech about your own murdered child was being curbed, on top of EVERYTHING ELSE you were dealing with. It just sucks all around.

SBMFF

I would feel like being asked to not talk about an ongoing investigation benefits me as my talking about it could jeopardize the prosecutions case. Being silent would benefit me and my dead child. I'd STHU and wait until the case was over, and then I could say whatever I wanted. But I would not want to say anything that could cause a murderer to get off. I would understand why I'm being asked to remain silent for now. It's in my, and my deceased child's, best interest. I would absolutely not have a problem with that. All MOO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Could the families push for a plea deal to avoid reliving this in court and in public? If so could the prosecution override that? Who makes the final decision to accept the plea?

Of course. Family considerations are always considered by a persecutor, but a prosecutor is not bound by their wishes. The prosecutor's client is the State.