ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 71

[Sister Golden Hair]

Sourece for the 'thousands of innocent people in prison' ?

eji.org
marshallproject.org
innocenceproject.org
and the national registry of exonerations will get you started.

 

[Gemmie]

IMO textbook, cowards murder defenseless innocent people.

I tend to agree with you. However, dictionaries defines it differently. What I bolded doesn't sound like BK.

If you call someone a coward, you disapprove of them because they are easily frightened and avoid dangerous or difficult situations.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/coward

 

[RonSwanson33]

I tend to agree with you. However, dictionaries defines it differently. What I bolded doesn't sound like BK.

If you call someone a coward, you disapprove of them because they are easily frightened and avoid dangerous or difficult situations.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/coward

OK but in real life people use the word coward like I did too so. He was a coward in his life, to blame his problems on women or not being able to get one, so then went and murdered them. Coward.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

IMO alibi is an asserted defense and not an automatic get out of jail card. Defendants can notice the state of their intent to assert an alibi defense. Defendants can provide evidence to the state concering their alibi defense. The state, however, is under no obligation to dismiss based on this evidence or asserted alibi defense.

The defendant could then call witnesses and present evidence to support their alibi defense.

The finder of fact determines if the alibi defense is legit or not.

IMO there are often cases were an alibi is asserted by the defendant and the case still proceeds to trial.

@Cassady wonderful to see you here. I really appreciate your legal expertise, professionalism, and perspective. I dipped out for a bit and just caught up on your more recent posts, and I just wanted to say thank you. Your COI arguments are compelling.

 

[Dotta]

I tend to agree with you. However, dictionaries defines it differently. What I bolded doesn't sound like BK.

If you call someone a coward, you disapprove of them because they are easily frightened and avoid dangerous or difficult situations.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/coward

Cowardly behaviour means - among other things - attacking those who are vulnerable and cannot defend themselves.

Bullies are despicable cowards as they choose victims much weaker than themselves.

They "boost" their cowardly Ego.

Cowards lack courage and are characterized by failure of character in the face of real challenge.

JMO as a not English native speaker

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

But when you are officially told "you are under arrest" you must be read your Miranda rights.

People are questioned all the time about crimes and not read Miranda Rights. Look at YouTube and you see this all the time, cops interviewing people at their jobs, on the street, etc.... Suspecting them of a crime but not arresting them, not reading Miranda Rights. When you see them actually getting arrested they are always read their rights.

I had cops at my door questioning me and my kids because the car in our driveway matched the car a criminal had just used right after he had just robbed a local gas station. The cops made me wake up my sons so they could rule them out because they had the suspect's photo on camera.

I never heard a thing about Miranda Rights.

I replied rashly and am correcting to add detail but I would also add that just because cops ask questions every day without mirandizing doesn't make it okay. that's how evidence gets thrown out. In BK's case, I'd bet my own money that he was Mirandized immediately. - you and I agree. re the rest however,

Know Your Rights | Stopped by Police | ACLU

Being stopped by police is a stressful experience that can go bad quickly. Here we describe what the law requires and also offer strategies for handling police encounters. We want to be clear: The burden of de-escalation does not fall on private citizens — it falls on police officers. However...

www.aclu.org

Stop and frisk

www.law.cornell.edu

Terry stop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

happens all the time: Motion To Suppress

Re the Miranda issue, I should have elaborated and will do so here:

Miranda is required at arrest, but it's not just at the time of arrest. Miranda is required if the suspect is subject to "custodial interrogation". And that's not based on what you and I might consider 'custody' or 'interrogation'. It is a grey area, and the liminal space between questioning v. interrogation and when 'custody' begins inspires many legal discussions, and by that I mean lots of case law on the subject, many legal articles online, and it's the stuff of motions to exclude/include evidence. My hope (and I think that this is the case with BK's arrest, just based on the circumstances) is that he was Mirandized immediately. jmo imo and based on tons o' links. here are two to begin:

Miranda warning

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Gemmie]

OK but in real life people use the word coward like I did too so. He was a coward in his life, to blame his problems on women or not being able to get one, so then went and murdered them. Coward.

Oh, I totally agree with you. I also don't disagree with the other posters' definitions I saw upthread.

I think what happens with a lot of words is that they have a definition as defined by dictionaries, but they can change over time for people because who pulls out a dictionary these days for a true definition? lol I've actually been pretty surprised when I found out some words I thought I knew what they meant (because it's how I and others have used them), were not at all what was in the dictionary. It's called semantic change.

Semantic change (also semantic shift, semantic progression, semantic development, or semantic drift) is a form of language change regarding the evolution of word usage—usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage.

Semantic change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Miranda is required at arrest, but it's not just at the time of arrest. Miranda is required if the suspect is subject to "custodial interrogation". And that's not based on what you and I might consider 'custody' or 'interrogation'. It is a grey area, and the liminal space between questioning v. interrogation and when 'custody' begins inspires many legal discussions, and by that I mean lots of case law on the subject, many legal articles online, and it's the stuff of motions to exclude/include evidence. My hope (and I think that this is the case with BK's arrest, just based on the circumstances) is that he was Mirandized immediately. jmo imo and based on tons o' links. edited to delete original post but add additional information.

 

[Cool Cats]

I should have elaborated and will do so here:

Miranda is required at arrest, but it's not just at the time of arrest. Miranda is required if the suspect is subject to "custodial interrogation". And that's not based on what you and I might consider 'custody' or 'interrogation'. It is a grey area, and the liminal space between questioning v. interrogation and when 'custody' begins inspires many legal discussions, and by that I mean lots of case law on the subject, many legal articles online, and it's the stuff of motions to exclude/include evidence. My hope (and I think that this is the case with BK's arrest, just based on the circumstances) is that he was Mirandized immediately. jmo imo and based on tons o' links. here are two to begin:

Miranda warning

www.law.cornell.edu

I deleted these posts, it is a moot point. We can all assume BK was read his Miranda Rights AT TIME OF ARREST as is required when arresting a "serial killer" or when arresting anyone else.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

I deleted these posts, it is a moot point. We can all assume BK was read his Miranda Rights at time of arrest as is required when arresting a serial killer.

oh, I responded, and clarified. you are right about bk, but I think that WS is also an excellent place to learn fine points. edited because my stupid keyboard is sticking. I blame the cats

 

[Twistinginthewind]

The “if you’re innocent, you have nothing to hide!” is an unfortunate - and even dangerous - myth propagated by crime shows. Innocent or not, the prudent thing to do is remain silent. This is something any first-year law student will tell you. JMO.

I understand the concerns about people answering LE's questions, it goes without saying that BK is a student of criminology and would get the "right to remain silent" bit.

I still think the first instinct of someone who is innocent would be to cooperate and answer LE's questions if they have no guilt because they were not involved in the crime in question, then if LE isn't satisfied with the answers given, would stop them at that point, get a lawyer, and then answer questions with a lawyer present.

In BK's case, he not only refused to answer LE questions about the Idaho murders from the start, but even after getting lawyers (in fact a "defense team"), he has still refused to do so, AFAIK.

To me this is not indicative of someone who is innocent and has nothing to hide, otherwise he would have said "something anything" about his innocence directly to LE, and not just told his lawyer he hoped to be exonerated.

ETA: BK's response to LE requests is TBE (to be expected), IMO, but still seems kind of "dodgy" taken as a whole.

MOO

 

[ktm44]

Yes!!! If all four had been awake and together, I think the outcome would be very different. He attacked at their most vulnerable & weakest. Coward indeed. IMO.

You really don't know how people will react. One man managed to stab 5 university students to death at a house party in Calgary a number of years ago.

Edited to correct typo

 

[Sassafrass]

you are always read your Miranda rights when you are arrested.or at least that is when they are

I should have elaborated and will do so here:

Miranda is required at arrest, but it's not just at the time of arrest. Miranda is required if the suspect is subject to "custodial interrogation". And that's not based on what you and I might consider 'custody' or 'interrogation'. It is a grey area, and the liminal space between questioning v. interrogation and when 'custody' begins inspires many legal discussions, and by that I mean lots of case law on the subject, many legal articles online, and it's the stuff of motions to exclude/include evidence. My hope (and I think that this is the case with BK's arrest, just based on the circumstances) is that he was Mirandized immediately. jmo imo and based on tons o' links. here are two to begin:

Miranda warning

www.law.cornell.edu

Miranda applies to post-arrest, in-custody interrogation. The Constitution doesn't require advisement of Miranda rights at arrest. No doubt there has been litigation across Federal and state courts in every state/Circuit as to the variations on the law in those jurisductions, so there should be varying results depending.

Local customs as to when rights are read, and the exact wording, vary.

In-custody interrogation is not that gray a space. It means you've been arrested and detained/are not free to go, and it means you are being asked questions.

Talking without being asked a question is not protected, even in custody. Talking to a non-state agent asking you questions while in custody is not protected.

The remedy (after filing a motion to exclude your testimonial evidence, if successful) is exclusion of your statements from your criminal trial (on the matter for which you were arrested), but only as evidence of your guilt/admission. It can still be used to impeach you, and evidence obtained based on or as a result of your (excluded) statements is admissible.

All statements ^ are general statements. Jurisdictions/prevailing interpretations may vary.

 

[Boxer]

eji.org
marshallproject.org
innocenceproject.org
and the national registry of exonerations will get you started.

What case in particular do you think applies in this instance?
Same kind of situation on what way?

 

[wary]

Yes. If defense has discovery they have to disclose it before trial.

Could be any number of things such as witness list, expert witnesses, forensic reports, video camera footage, receipts, medical records, photos, computer or phone digital information, social media accounts,
investigative reports from their own investigators, psychological reports, physical evidence, their own DNA analysis, witness interviews, any number of things.

I find it odd they have zero. They are sopose to gather evidence for the preliminary hearing, otherwise, why put this hearing off 5 more months? I thought putting it off is to gain evidence.

I believe the defense would be quite unlikely to present any evidence at the preliminary hearing.

MOO

 

[renarde]

Did the delivery person say who received the food? I thought the bag was on the counter in the kitchen? If XK did take the order, set it on the counter while she ran upstairs to perhaps get something. And then sadly was killed. It almost sounds like BK was already in the house. JMO

There was a Jack in the Box bag in the kitchen with XK's name on it, near the sink. Maybe that was a bag from a different day though?

Did DoorDash delivery person actually come up to the slider door and hand the food to someone? Or leave it somewhere outside near one of the doors? I'm wondering if BK was already in the house at that point... such a short time frame for so much to happen, and then the car was seen leaving the area at 4:20...

<moo>

 

[Cool Cats]

I believe the defense would be quite unlikely to present any evidence at the preliminary hearing.

MOO

They are gathering evidence, this is why they asked to delay the preliminary hearing.

They will present evidence, they are requesting 4 or 5 days for the hearing.

 

[Zella]

I still think the first instinct of someone who is innocent would be to cooperate and answer LE's questions if they have no guilt because they were not involved in the crime in question, then if LE isn't satisfied with the answers given, would stop them at that point, get a lawyer, and then answer questions with a lawyer present.

I find it problematic to assert that only guilty people lawyer up. There are any number of reasons someone may choose to not cooperate and to immediately ask for a lawyer, including having a bad prior experience with LE or being very cognizant of how quickly a seemingly friendly chat with cops can turn into you being suspect #1. MOO

 

[CGray123]

I tend to agree with you. However, dictionaries defines it differently. What I bolded doesn't sound like BK.

If you call someone a coward, you disapprove of them because they are easily frightened and avoid dangerous or difficult situations.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/coward

BK planned to kill while avoiding any dangers and difficult situations that could arise.

He chose female victims who were physically smaller and weaker than himself, presenting little or no physical threat to him. Even so, he sought to avoid a confrontation with his victims by arriving at a time when he expected them to be asleep. He sought to avoid detection and pursuit, arriving in the dark at a time when no one would notice his absence in Pullman and when there was little activity in the neighborhood.

These are not the actions of a brave man, and one definition of cowardice is the absence of bravery.

I like the synonym offered in the definition you cite, however: skulker: one who moves in hiding, often for an evil or cowardly purpose.

But for me, coward will do fine.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Yes. If defense has discovery they have to disclose it before trial.

Could be any number of things such as witness list, expert witnesses, forensic reports, video camera footage, receipts, medical records, photos, computer or phone digital information, social media accounts,
investigative reports from their own investigators, psychological reports, physical evidence, their own DNA analysis, witness interviews, any number of things.

I find it odd they have zero. They are sopose to gather evidence for the preliminary hearing, otherwise, why put this hearing off 5 more months? I thought putting it off is to gain evidence.

Thanks for confirming! And very interesting nothing from them (yet)... Wonder if this is some weird strategy.