4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #79

[Cool Cats]

I find the focus on harm to witnesses curious. We can guess some of the witnesses, but I am perplexed as to why anyone feels they could be in danger or from whom. We know of one suspect, who is in jail and BK groupies who think he's innocent. Are those groupies known to be dangerous? This is one of the things that makes me think there is something more complex out there that the public isn't privy to.

Why are you perplexed as to why anyone feels they could be in danger or from whom?

The witnesses and their families and associates were clearly threatened and harassed they didn't make this up.

Read the Motion

• 05/17/2023 Motion to Seal Grand Jury Witnesses

 

[Nova]

Yes, I do, primarily based on the fact that a GJ is a private setting.

It could all be just too awful, some of the evidence, due to the heinous nature of the crimes, that should never see the light of day or be presented in open court for the public to know about.

Also, the GJ setting allows the prosecution to present their case without the defendant or their attorney present, which is another aspect of privacy that allows them to jump ahead and holds the defendant at arms length.

MOO

I think the latter is more likely than the former. I doubt DAs become successful by worrying about the "exposure" of witnesses or relatives of victims.

I don't pretend to understand why the GJ option was preferred by the DA, but based on my experience with lawyers in general, I'm more apt to believe it was strategy than "compassion".

I don't mean to tar prosecutors as unfeeling; I just don't see how they can do their jobs if they are worried that every witness might be embarrassed or inconvenienced.

 

[jepop]

Of course you don't. It just seemed that you were you saying that because you wanted that to be the case, not based upon evidence. I think that the actions show that he prosecution had serious concerns about proceeding to a preliminary hearing and you have to ask yourself why. They are buying themselves time. People complain about Defenses stalling cases, but I think that is what the prosecution is doing here. They were going to have to produce evidence at that PH that they don't have yet.

RBBM: Just wondering what evidence exists that the state may have gone the GJ route to " try and withhold information" (quote from earlier post) or to "buy time"? Alsowondering on what grounds this statement: "They were going to have to produce evidence at the PH that they don't have yet?". How could we know this? And why does the State's response to Defense's Motion to Compel suggest otherwise? The PH was set for end of June, how can we know what the state would have had by then? And if we speculate that some evidence may not yet have been available end of June for legitimate reasons, then how could the State produce such evidence anyway at the PH? Isn't it possible that there may be multiple reasons, or more than one reason or a combination of reasons, that the prosecution chose this unusual route? MOO

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/051223%20States%20Response%20to%20Defendants%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20Discovery.pdf

 

[Nova]

IANAL, but IMO, if this is true, it does make sense if, possibly, the goal is to protect the privacy of the survivors, the victims, and anyone else who may be indirectly affected. We know the prosecution has supported the gag order, and there are many moving parts judging by the warrants with (what seems to me) an extraordinary number of redactions, including some involving people besides the victims, suspect, and survivors. @Sister Golden Hair did a deep dive on all this. From the warrants for all DD drivers delivering to the King St address to Tinder activity to all the bank accounts, there are probably a number of people whose privacy could be breached by evidence presented at the PH.

MOO.

I've have heard of prosecutors taking pains to avoid exposure of child witnesses. (Diane Downs' trial had to be delayed while her daughter who survived the shooting was well enough to testify.)

But it is not my impression that prosecutorial strategy is generally determined by a concern for the comfort of adult witnesses. Whatever the reason for going to the GJ--and I don't pretend I know--I suspect it will turn out to be trial strategy, not an attempt to rescue the surviving roommates, say, from public exposure.

I'd more likely suspect the DA wanted to forestall a worldwide discussion of "touch DNA" before the eventual trial jury is impanelled. (This is just a random example on my part. I really don't know why the DA went the GJ route.)

 

[jepop]

Why are you perplexed as to why anyone feels they could be in danger or from whom?

The witnesses and their families and associates were clearly threatened and harassed they didn't make this up.

Read the Motion

• 05/17/2023 Motion to Seal Grand Jury Witnesses

Yes, I am also genuinely not understanding. This motion to redact the GJ witnesses seems very clear to me. MOO

Also in the numerous redacted released prosuecution warrants, the pro-forma (I believe it is wording from Idaho Court Rules) reason given for sealing which reads something like "danger to the safety and/or life.." etc is, IMO, to be read in most, if not all instances, as above ie harrassment, intimidation, stalking, unwarranted press attention and online sm abuse. All of that could indeed endanger the health, especially the emotional and mental health, of prospective witnesses, confidential informants (who may have helped provide PC for many of the warrants), other (now eliminated) POIs and others involved. MOO.

Edit spelling

 

[Nova]

It's my own opinion. I don't think I had to base it on anything.

Perhaps this is a semantic problem. I don't speak for @PrairieWind, of course, but I think of an "opinion" as a reasoned conclusion based on available evidence. So if I offer an opinion, I fully expect others to ask "How did you come to that conclusion?"

I also have plenty of other thoughts based on no evidence whatsoever. I'd call those "flights of fancy", "speculations" or even "guesses".

You, of course, are under no obligation to explain your reasoning, but I truly doubt @PrairieWind was intending to be confrontational.

 

[Nova]

I am a bit perplexed. I won't even address the Dad issue.
But you say that the Defendant wont have the opportunity to attack the evidence like that is a good thing? If the evidence can't hold up now it certainly wont at trial. This is why we have preliminary hearings. I just routinely stunned by comments like this.
The two survivors have been through a horrible ordeal. But at least the one had avoided PH testimony entirely. But regardless, if this case goes to trial, and I think there is a good chance it will, those girls are going to have to testify. And there may be some stuff that comes out that is uncomfortable for them. But before we sent a man to death row or life in prison, we have to hear the facts.

Thank YOU (as always)!

I really don't think the comfort of adult witnesses is a primary concern when a prosecution designs its trial strategy. (Perhaps SA victims are an exception, since victim testimony can be fragile with such crimes; obviously this doesn't apply here.)

We are all "nice" people who don't want to see DM or BF upset, but I can't believe their comfort will be allowed to dictate prosecutorial tactics!

 

[jepop]

This is unfortunate. The taxpayers will pay for this trial and they deserve to see and hear what they pay for, IMO. It's dangerous to do the business of justice behind closed doors and also to leave it to the press to relay what happened to the public. All my opinion.

RBBM: The trial will be covered in the usual manner I think. I'm pretty sure the Judge's statements and orders only relate to pre-trial matters. MOO

 

[Nova]

This is unfortunate. The taxpayers will pay for this trial and they deserve to see and hear what they pay for, IMO. It's dangerous to do the business of justice behind closed doors and also to leave it to the press to relay what happened to the public. All my opinion.

I don't know if the issue is who will pay for the proceedings.

But under our system, the idea is that public trials keep the government honest. Frankly, the way this case has been handled so far shows us why. I realize the Kohberger case doesn't strike us as particularly political, but imagine if he were black!

I tend to agree with you, Isabella, but I assume you are an American as am I. Under the British system--with a democracy much older than ours--almost all pre-trial publicity is banned. The public has to wait until the actual trial to learn what is happening in court. (As I understand it.)

 

[Nova]

Agree, absolutely, I will never understand why the taxpayer isn't allowed to attend a trial they funded. moo

I think taxpayers are welcome to attend most trials, if there is room in the gallery. (A GJ proceeding is different, of course, to protect the reputation of innocent defendants.)

But our legal system is still dealing--in its "crazy quilt", patchwork manner--with whether broadcasting or televising a trial is the same as allowing visitors to observe in person.

"The medium is the message," to quote Marshall McLuhan. Many pundits thought the O.J. Simpson criminal murder trial went awry because all the participants were mugging for the TV cameras, and Marsha Clark had to deal with a wave of social media criticizing her hairdos!

 

[I'm Nobody]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1659038451558129664

Thank you @gliving

I have enormous respect for all the victims' parents. Every. Single. One. However they decide to proceed.
They have had to deal with the rabbit holes, rumors, wild speculation, and insinuation via the Internet while trying to live with the deepest grief possible. If someone can't understand a parent speaking out in these circumstances, be thankful. I could still hear the pain in Steve Goncalves' voice today. Monday when seats are being filled by the families, Moms, Dads, or siblings, (I think I will get started on the Dads first) I will be yelling at them in my loudest voice, "You can do this. You will find the strength. You got this." Yes, I will start with the Dads.

Real life "nutters" live in this world where free speech is too often taken as a right to be cruel. They take ball bats or worse to people they never met, people they read about on the Internet or heard about. People they just plain don't agree with. They hate an idea and go to kill the person. They hate period. I don't need to know the nutters' names; their aftermath in the news tells me they exist.

The grand jury had the same outcome I believe the Prelim would have; that being there is enough proof to charge BK with the murders and proceed to trial. Selfishly I wanted to hear the evidence at Prelim. Now I have to wait for the trial. What, maybe a year? IMO Thompson has a strategy and probably a better criminal mind than BK. Possible but doubtful there was only one reason connected to that GJ. I don't get to know why. All the evidence has not been released to the public from either side.


I respect we all have differing opinions, different backgrounds, speculations, beliefs. Call it what you want. It's somebody's voice. This is mine.

My speculation only. Random thoughts on reads today.

JMO, IMO, MOO
edit tyypo

 

[Nova]

Yes, I'm understanding that now. But I still believe she should have said that unless there was a GJ he had the right to a PH.

BK was represented by counsel, lawyers who certainly know the law in regard to PCHs and GJs. If trials were overturned every time a judge misspeaks or omits some phrase, the entire legal system would grind to a halt.

 

[jepop]

I agree that PW makes a valid point. If the prosecution can't make BARD, then GJ is the way to go. Based on what we know at this time, I am not convinced BARD, so maybe PW is right and that is the issue.

I know that the prosecution stated just how much material was turned over during discovery, but quantity doesn't make quality (I'll cite the Morphew debacle re that - volumes of it but not enough, apparently). Also, side note, important to remember IMO that all that material still might not include what was included in the defense's discovery request, either.

Section deleted by me.

What I wish I knew about the BK/GJ situation (and what i think would be a big indicator as to why this is happening) is how the defense feels about this - that would give me a better read on things. I think it's quite possible that the prosecution hasn't gotten to BARD and the case is much more complex than it appears with issues that are best kept sealed until they can't be. JMO ICBW and I haven't read the documents yet, so all this could change after I do some research. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to start my Go Fund Me so I can quit the day job and devote myself to this case lol.

RBBM: BARD is not required at PH? Only at trial as I understand it. AT PH what is required is PC. MOO

 

[cottonweaver]

MSN

Waiving its rights to a speedy trial was a "big gamble" that didn't bode well for the defense, Coffindaffer said.

Former FBI Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer said the decision to convene a grand jury likely stemmed from Kohberger's decision to waive his right to a speedy trial. By doing so, the defense gave the prosecution time to gather a grand jury—a loss for the defense, according to Coffindaffer.

"I thought it was a huge mistake at the time, it opens the door for the grand jury," Coffindaffer told Newsweek.

It's unclear when the defense found out about the grand jury, as Coffindaffer said it's conducted in "complete silence."

Most times, the legal defense prefers a preliminary hearing, which allows them the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and hear evidence from the prosecution. With a grand jury, the defense isn't even in the room. The chances of the grand jury determining probable cause are high.

I think Jennifer C means a speedy prelim hearing not a speedy trial . ( slip of the tongue from JC)
BK can still choose a speedy trial ( and he can waive it thereafter if he decides to)

However am still a bit confused about her final paragraph. I thought that the defendant's attorneys were not present during the GJ and they just get the transcript afterwards.

 

[jepop]

<snipped for focus>

IIRC, both the defense AND the state were happy to delay the preliminary hearing until June.
In fact, the prosecution suggested an even later date, but the Judge went with the late June date that was requested by the defense.

RBBM: At the time of this first hearing occurred I posted a time stamp to show what happenned with the dates set for the PH. Not doing that again now (the videois posted many times onthis thread though!) but I recall the judge suggested late June, the prosecution mentioned would prefer first week of July due to calendar issue, then all parties agreed to last week of June with prosecution (I would assume) deciding they couldsort their calendar issue. MOO

 

[cottonweaver]

I find the focus on harm to witnesses curious. We can guess some of the witnesses, but I am perplexed as to why anyone feels they could be in danger or from whom. We know of one suspect, who is in jail and BK groupies who think he's innocent. Are those groupies known to be dangerous? This is one of the things that makes me think there is something more complex out there that the public isn't privy to.

During the investigation, before BK was arrested, there was intrusive reporting on SM & MSM of many people who'd been connected to the victims.
Okay this is thread 79, and I've no idea which threads to link to, but for example....
-there was long lens, 'papparazzi' shots of KG's ex. Similar intrusive reporting of DM jogging to the coffee shop
- shows such as Banfield whipping-up speculation around the survivors
- defamation case involving tiktokkers & university professor
- lots of unpleasant stuff on FB directed at randoms & witnesses identified from the grub truck cctv

I don't know if all that has died down though, if it's still realistic. This frenzy seemed to be mostly during the manhunt.

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't know if the issue is who will pay for the proceedings.

But under our system, the idea is that public trials keep the government honest. Frankly, the way this case has been handled so far shows us why. I realize the Kohberger case doesn't strike us as particularly political, but imagine if he were black!

I tend to agree with you, Isabella, but I assume you are an American as am I. Under the British system--with a democracy much older than ours--almost all pre-trial publicity is banned. The public has to wait until the actual trial to learn what is happening in court. (As I understand it.)

Agreed and I can see pros and cons with each system but I think that if we had elected prosecutors and elected judges there would be a huge clamour over here for more in-trial transparency.

 

[jepop]

My opinion is that she saw what she saw.
The intruder was a white man plus a few details, eyebrows prominent, not overweight, not short.
MOO Eliminates lots of men.

It reads ok from that perspective too, cannot exclude the defendant. Hope there's a way for a potential witness to say as much in their potential testimony. MOO

Thank you @gliving

I have enormous respect for all the victims' parents. Every. Single. One. However they decide to proceed.
They have had to deal with the rabbit holes, rumors, wild speculation, and insinuation via the Internet while trying to live with the deepest grief possible. If someone can't understand a parent speaking out in these circumstances, be thankful. I could still hear the pain in Steve Goncalves' voice today. Monday when seats are being filled by the families, Moms, Dads, or siblings, (I think I will get started on the Dads first) I will be yelling at them in my loudest voice, "You can do this. You will find the strength. You got this." Yes, I will start with the Dads.

Real life "nutters" live in this world where free speech is too often taken as a right to be cruel. They take ball bats or worse to people they never met, people they read about on the Internet or heard about. People they just plain don't agree with. They hate an idea and go to kill the person. They hate period. I don't need to know the nutters' names; their aftermath in the news tells me they exist.

The grand jury had the same outcome I believe the Prelim would have; that being there is enough proof to charge BK with the murders and proceed to trial. Selfishly I wanted to hear the evidence at Prelim. Now I have to wait for the trial. What, maybe a year? IMO Thompson has a strategy and probably a better criminal mind than BK. Possible but doubtful there was only one reason connected to that GJ. I don't get to know why. All the evidence has not been released to the public from either side.


I respect we all have differing opinions, different backgrounds, speculations, beliefs. Call it what you want. It's somebody's voice. This is mine.

My speculation only. Random thoughts on reads today.

JMO, IMO, MOO
edit tyypo

Thank you so much for your thoughts on the way this case is proceeding and some of the pressures that have no doubt applied. This is a wondeful, compassionate and incisive post, IMO.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

I don't know if the issue is who will pay for the proceedings.

But under our system, the idea is that public trials keep the government honest. Frankly, the way this case has been handled so far shows us why. I realize the Kohberger case doesn't strike us as particularly political, but imagine if he were black!

I tend to agree with you, Isabella, but I assume you are an American as am I. Under the British system--with a democracy much older than ours--almost all pre-trial publicity is banned. The public has to wait until the actual trial to learn what is happening in court. (As I understand it.)

United States is the world’s oldest democracy.

 

[Cool Cats]

Thank you @gliving

I have enormous respect for all the victims' parents. Every. Single. One. However they decide to proceed.
They have had to deal with the rabbit holes, rumors, wild speculation, and insinuation via the Internet while trying to live with the deepest grief possible. If someone can't understand a parent speaking out in these circumstances, be thankful. I could still hear the pain in Steve Goncalves' voice today. Monday when seats are being filled by the families, Moms, Dads, or siblings, (I think I will get started on the Dads first) I will be yelling at them in my loudest voice, "You can do this. You will find the strength. You got this." Yes, I will start with the Dads.

Real life "nutters" live in this world where free speech is too often taken as a right to be cruel. They take ball bats or worse to people they never met, people they read about on the Internet or heard about. People they just plain don't agree with. They hate an idea and go to kill the person. They hate period. I don't need to know the nutters' names; their aftermath in the news tells me they exist.

The grand jury had the same outcome I believe the Prelim would have; that being there is enough proof to charge BK with the murders and proceed to trial. Selfishly I wanted to hear the evidence at Prelim. Now I have to wait for the trial. What, maybe a year? IMO Thompson has a strategy and probably a better criminal mind than BK. Possible but doubtful there was only one reason connected to that GJ. I don't get to know why. All the evidence has not been released to the public from either side.


I respect we all have differing opinions, different backgrounds, speculations, beliefs. Call it what you want. It's somebody's voice. This is mine.

My speculation only.

JMO, IMO, MOO
edit tyypo

The defense shouldn't have counseled Bryan into postponing his PH.

The prosecution would have been forced right away to present evidence and maybe they wouldn't have had enough evidence to proceed to trial at that time.

By the defense stalling it gave the prosecution literally months to continue gathering evidence, months to subpoena/interview/prepare witnesses, months to research and organize their evidence, etc...

And the prosecution had a great advantage, they were able to present evidence and question witnesses without any objections from the defense and without the defense cross examining the witnesses.

I wonder if Bryan's attorneys told him that he was giving the prosecution the "gift" of getting an easy indictment from the GJ which is what happened. The defense attorneys knew it would likely happen because the prosecution wants an indictment as soon as possible and it is easy to get one from a GJ. The defense can't fight it when witnesses and evidence go before a GJ. The GJ only sees one side of it so it is easy to get them to indict.

2 Cents

I think Jennifer C means a speedy prelim hearing not a speedy trial . ( slip of the tongue from JC)
BK can still choose a speedy trial ( and he can waive it thereafter if he decides to)

However am still a bit confused about her final paragraph. I thought that the defendant's attorneys were not present during the GJ and they just get the transcript afterwards.

You must have read it wrong she says the defense is not in the room for the GJ hearing.

Most times, the legal defense prefers a preliminary hearing, which allows them the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and hear evidence from the prosecution. With a grand jury, the defense isn't even in the room. The chances of the grand jury determining probable cause are high.