ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 70

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope that you are right, but I am exercising caution and think it is warranted here. Although the affidavit was enough to establish probable cause for arrest, and there are over 995 documents produced for discovery, quantity does to always equate to quality. The 995 documents may not all represent compelling proof, and the records related to 4 people or more are included in that. Consider the voluminous 129-page PCA and 'tens of thousands' of pages of discovery in the Barry morphew debacle as proof that big doesn't mean better. jmo imo



I understand and fair enough. I think LE and investigators for the prosecution have continued investigations, analysis, gathering of evidence and so forth after the PCA was finalised. I would be greatly surprised if nothing new or further detailed and expert analysis of digital evidence and other evidence is not forthcoming. MOO
 
one last thing from the PCA:

D.M. did not state that she recognized the male.

this sentence from page 4 bothers me. Did they not ask her? I'd think that they would have, in which case I would expect the statement to be D.M. stated that she did not recognize the male.

the way that it is written it could be taken to mean simply that she did not say it, not that she did not recognize him. it's like if I say 'I said I didn't do it.' that's different than 'I didn't do it.'

anyway, probably just awkwardness but it's bothered me since I read the PCA. and this is not any kind of smear against D.M., just me wondering about an oddly written statement. It's an odd way to say it imo jmo.

 
I understand and fair enough. I think LE and investigators for the prosecution have continued investigations, analysis, gathering of evidence and so forth after the PCA was finalised. I would be greatly surprised if nothing new or further detailed and expert analysis of digital evidence and other evidence is not forthcoming. MOO
Ditto. I'm just wary as all get out about this case. so many things still off about it, and I veer away from the assumed path because hard lessons.
 
one last thing from the PCA:

D.M. did not state that she recognized the male.

this sentence from page 4 bothers me. Did they not ask her? I'd think that they would have, in which case I would expect the statement to be D.M. stated that he did not recognize the male.

the way that it is written it could be taken to mean simply that she did not say it, not that she did not recognize him. it's like if I say 'I said I didn't do it.' that's different than 'I didn't do it.'

anyway, probably just awkwardness but it's bothered me since I read the PCA. and this is not any kind of smear against D.M., just me wondering about an oddly written statement. It's an odd way to say it imo jmo.

It's standard LE/witness statement language IMO. Part of an unsolicited witness statement. IMO, nothing to worry about. MOO
 
It's standard LE/witness statement language IMO. Part of an unsolicited witness statement. IMO, nothing to worry about. MOO
You're probably right, and maybe it is, but lack of clarity in legal language is always a concern. I'm probably just overthinking it, but I'd never write it that way because it can be read two different ways. The rest of the language around that statement is clear and direct. This specific statement is not. It stands out jmo imo

editing to add this example:

D.M. stated she looked out of her bedroom but did not see anything when she heard the comment about someone being in the house.

and compare that to

D.M. did not state that she saw something when she heard the comment about someone being in the house.

IMO,
 
Ditto. I'm just wary as all get out about this case. so many things still off about it, and I veer away from the assumed path because hard lessons.
I understand, the OP's post, as worded, didn't make much sense to me because hypothetical seemed so improbable. MOO
Could the defense get him off of this charge if there is little additional evidence past what is in the affidavit? I feel like it’s enough but barely.
 
You're probably right, and maybe it is, but lack of clarity in legal language is always a concern. I'm probably just overthinking it, but I'd never write it that way because it can be read two different ways. The rest of the language around that statement is clear and direct. This specific statement is not. It stands out jmo imo

editing to add this example:

D.M. stated she looked out of her bedroom but did not see anything when she heard the comment about someone being in the house.

and compare that to

D.M. did not state that she saw something when she heard the comment about someone being in the house.

IMO,
I understand. I tend to think that it's the writer of the PCA interpreting part of an unsolicited witness statement MOO, so if that is the case then DM may have descibed whatever she saw without actually stating "I didn't recognise him" because in an unsolicited witness statement she would not have been asked questions but rather, written down all she remembered in her own words. MOO. MOO, LE/affadavit content being included with care and an eye to being questioned re leading questions. MOO
 
I understand, the OP's post, as worded, didn't make much sense to me because hypothetical seemed so improbable. MOO
oh, yes, I see. Still, I hope you're right. I hope he left lots of flighty DNA and that LE scoured that place and looked in even the most unlikely places. I don't see how the defense could just 'get him off' imo jmo. However, I do think that if they go to trial and either they don't have evidence placing BK inside the house or they don't have compelling evidence from the search warrant, a crafty defense could bring some reasonable doubt. it only takes one.
 
I understand. I tend to think that it's the writer of the PCA interpreting part of an unsolicited witness statement MOO, so if that is the case then DM may have descibed whatever she saw without actually stating "I didn't recognise him" because in an unsolicited witness statement she would not have been asked questions but rather, written down all she remembered in her own words. MOO. MOO, LE/affadavit content being included with care and an eye to being questioned re leading questions. MOO
fair point. you're probably right, but it will still bother me for all of eternity, however :) a little OCD is good for the soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
482
Total visitors
646

Forum statistics

Threads
608,333
Messages
18,237,810
Members
234,342
Latest member
wendysuzette
Back
Top