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

[Jealoushe]

Sounds right to me, defense can't just say BK's phone was nicked that night, or car stolen so as to generate an alibi for him. They would have to offer some sort of proof to make that assertion reasonably probable IMO. Without anything to support, those are just assertions based on nothing. MOO

I don't know....remember Mollie Tibbetts trial?

 

[Nova]

AND, one other question…

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.

It's not a dumb question at all!

The OP was addressing a post of mine and, yes, I believe s/he meant the defendant's rights. The public's right to know and the right of survivors to free speech has to be balanced against BK's right to a fair trial.

 

[Strong1]

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.

Thank you. Another question. How much does cost, docket load, and time come into play when the State is considering a plea?

 

[Cool Cats]

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

Yup.

And this is as clear as it is going to get unless other people come forward and say they also saw BK there.

It wouldn't matter if every single employee who ever worked there in 2022 lined up and said they never saw him, it still doesn't disprove that one employee says they saw him. You can't prove a negative.

So your 50/50 sounds about right at this point.

 

[Nova]

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?

The DA makes that call, so even the prosecutor can be overruled if s/he is not the actual District Attorney. (Most prosecutors are technically Assistant DAs, but I don't know much about towns as small as Moscow, ID.)

That said, it is a rare DA who won't at least discuss the charges with the victim's loved ones. It's a bad look in the press if grieving parents, say, claim the DA is "soft" on crime. In most--maybe all--U.S. jurisdictions, District Attorney is an elected office.

 

[Nova]

Thank you. Another question. How much does cost, docket load, and time come into play when the State is considering a plea?

I've worked for corporate law firms, but not for the government. My guess is that practical considerations will be largely waived in a case getting this much attention. The same may not be true in murders of fewer people or less photogenic ones.

ETA I will be VERY surprised if the state doesn't end up with far more resources than the defendant. Aside from very rich defendants such as O.J., it is usually the case that the State is more heavily armed.

(Sorry if this sounds cynical, but does anyone think I'm wrong?)

 

[Cool Cats]

It's not a dumb question at all!

The OP was addressing a post of mine and, yes, I believe s/he meant the defendant's rights. The public's right to know and the right of survivors to free speech has to be balanced against BK's right to a fair trial.

The whole reason for a gag order is to ensure BK gets a fair trial. Otherwise, it becomes a trial by media and can influence potential jurors.

 

[Strong1]

The whole reason for a gag order is to ensure BK gets a fair trial. Otherwise, it becomes a trial by media and can influence potential jurors.

I would think that all the coverage leading up to the gag order has already put a strain on the jury pool. Not to mention the number of false stories, rumors, and innuendo that continued to come after the gag order and still continue daily.

 

[Petunia83]

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.

I was definitely not referring to discussing anything that could jeopardize the case and justice for their loved ones, as that would obviously be worse and defeat the purpose of literally everything… Based on the comments and context of the ongoing thread, I thought that part was clear, so I think you just misunderstood me. I am not looking to argue with anyone, and I fully agree with all the points you made above, but I think you missed the fact that I was referring to not being able to speak of my loved one in ANY capacity… meaning in a way that would not jeopardize the case… and I simply expressed that there could be potential for judicial overreach in situations where innocuous comments are made and hold no bearing on securing or compromising a conviction. It exists, and it happens. Thank you for sharing your opinion, I’m sorry if you were offended, and again, I do not wish to argue with anyone so I hope that I have clarified myself and my statement for everyone here in the group.

 

[HopeValleyDevil]

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.

That much adrenaline going through his body that he ignores the finer details

 

[Curiosa20]

New poster here. I just wanted to clarify a few things I have seen mis-stated. WSU does indeed have a medical school, the campus is located here in Spokane. Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine. The U of W also has a medical school here in Spokane. Initially UW and WSU were in partnership on a medical school, but political infighting caused WSU to strike out on their own. This led to UW partnering with Gonzaga for a local medical school. UW-GU Health Partnership. Apparently WSU and UW have made up enough to share an Anatomy lab. The autopsies for the 4 victims were conducted here in Spokane at the Spokane County Medical Examiner. They have a brand new facility complete with a Lodox full body scanner.

Thank you and welcome!
The Lodox is amazing! What a fantastic resource.

 

[Ksfarmer8]

I was definitely not referring to discussing anything that could jeopardize the case and justice for their loved ones, as that would obviously be worse and defeat the purpose of literally everything… Based on the comments and context of the ongoing thread, I thought that part was clear, so I think you misunderstood me. I am not looking for an argument with anyone here - I fully agree with all the points you made above, I think you missed the fact that I was referring to not being able to speak of my loved one in ANY capacity… meaning in a way that would not jeopardize the case… and I simply expressed that there could be potential for judicial overreach in situations where innocuous comments are made that hold no bearing on compromising a conviction. It exists, and it happens. Thank you for sharing your opinion, I’m sorry if you were offended, and again, I do not wish to argue with anyone so I hope that I have clarified myself and my statement for everyone in the group.

Each of us can keep a secret; it is the ones we tell it to that cannot keep it secret!!

 

[Petunia83]

It's not a dumb question at all!

The OP was addressing a post of mine and, yes, I believe s/he meant the defendant's rights. The public's right to know and the right of survivors to free speech has to be balanced against BK's right to a fair trial.

Thanks! When you’re still on page 35 or 49 and trying to make sure you’re following everything correctly, sometimes you have to ask even at the risk of sounding dumb… hahaha, thanks for clarifying and not making me feel silly for it.

 

[HopeValleyDevil]

Yup.

And this is as clear as it is going to get unless other people come forward and say they also saw BK there.

It wouldn't matter if every single employee who ever worked there in 2022 lined up and said they never saw him, it still doesn't disprove that one employee says they saw him. You can't prove a negative.

So your 50/50 sounds about right at this point.

You can't disprove any wild speculation. You can't disprove it was done by aliens
That don't make it true, but the cafe owner probs has video that police have scoured through along with digital transactions.
There currently nothing to say the perp was there, more so vegan meals ordered, especially timeline cash receipt

Did the witness receive monies for the interview to say they saw someone like the accused?

 

[HopeValleyDevil]

It's not a dumb question at all!

The OP was addressing a post of mine and, yes, I believe s/he meant the defendant's rights. The public's right to know and the right of survivors to free speech has to be balanced against BK's right to a fair trial.

The public gets to hear the material facts at trial, albeit not the horror detail

 

[HopeValleyDevil]

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?

The owner and police have gone over video footage, single vegan meals ordered receipts, and tax receipts

 

[Gemmie]

I was definitely not referring to discussing anything that could jeopardize the case and justice for their loved ones, as that would obviously be worse and defeat the purpose of literally everything… Based on the comments and context of the ongoing thread, that part seemed clear, so I think you just misunderstood me. I am not looking to argue with anyone, and I fully agree with all the points you made above, but I think you missed the fact that I was referring to not being able to speak of my loved one in ANY capacity… meaning in a way that would not jeopardize the case… and I simply expressed that there could be potential for judicial overreach in situations where innocuous comments are made that hold no bearing on compromising a conviction. It exists, and it happens. Thank you for sharing your opinion, I’m sorry if you were offended, and again, I do not wish to argue with anyone so I hope that I have clarified myself and my statement for everyone here in the group.

No offense taken. You did ask "how would you feel" so I thought you looking for input on how others felt. lol

 

[Palinsmom]

I know there are a lot of questions right now about the possibility of BK going to the Mad Greek. I’m not sure if the date/s in question, but if LE has a record of his phone pings wouldn’t that show up for that location if he was there? Or is the visit supposed to have happened during a time that LE didn’t get the records for? Just asking

 

[PrairieWind]

Thank you. Another question. How much does cost, docket load, and time come into play when the State is considering a plea?

That is all up to the prosecutor. He/she is supposed to do what they deem correct. But of course cost and case load certainly figures in to that even if we think it shouldn't. There are realities that have to be considered. It is a factor in a defense as well but it is a little different.

 

[Curiosa20]

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

I wade into these murky waters because I am convinced there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the importance for a free democratic society to have access to official information and the role that vital access has in its continued existence. As far as I know the unnamed source- and I would have requested anonymity too, given the environment- may have broken the pinkie promise for silence or left before it went into effect. The owner is upset at the attention and necessary response to LE queries, but the source got no fame and obviously spoke out with trepidation. Why would there have even been that discussion around silence to begin with is concerning to me. She could have come out early on and said we know nothing, he was not a customer, thank you very much, as incredulous as that sounds given the circumstances. Or, we are reviewing our transactions, etc etc. and will get back through our spokesperson.
I don’t get the resentment. Unless she has something to hide in order to avoid inquiries or has been led to believe that by divulging something she would create a problem that I can’t imagine. But now, the only obvious issue to me is that she has thrown a former employee under the bus and taken refuge behind local LE.
Stress? Local politics?
I can empathize even more now with Steve G’s desperation in the days and weeks he could not get any information.
The gag is controversial and may not be upheld. It will have a chilling effect on any and everyone who has knowledge and information that should be available. JMO. That overarching gag is what misinformation, rumor and innuendo thrives on.
And importantly, to begin with, an anonymous source is not a disembodied mystery spirit, but a person with information who is vetted by responsable news organizations. The protected source has to meet various criteria and its use must be evaluated and approved by both a Sr reporter and Editor. If they were tricked- we will hear about that, too.
Do we really want to give up rights and access to vital information from official sources and squash speech just because it is uncomfortable to the denizens of a small community to be beset by social media or purveyors of dubious, morbid entertainment? I understand that they want this tragedy to go away, but it won’t. Secrecy and mistrust of outsiders will only make things worse.
No arguing there may be the need for a more limited restriction, but this is way over reach. IMO
Supporting LE or the Judicial system does not require blind acquiescence or the belief that it is infallible. Their interaction and timely updates with the Press is a sacred public service duty, too.
Where would WS be without access to open information?
IMO MOO
This person has made it clear:

Conversations with the officials involved in criminal cases helps journalists understand the nuances of legal arguments and the technical steps of court proceedings so their coverage can be fair and thorough, said media coalition member and Idaho Press Club President Betsy Russell.

“We’re not lawyers for the most part, nor are our readers, and those explanations can help make sure that inaccurate information isn’t spread about what’s happening in our halls of justice,” Russell said.

News outlets join to oppose gag order in Idaho stabbing case

Twenty-two regional and national news organizations have formed a coalition to ask a judge to narrow a gag order in the case of a man accused of killing four University of Idaho students.

apnews.com