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

[Sundog]

If I may disagree just slightly, my guess is that BK was "trespassed" (WSU's verb) for the two altercations with his professor. I am speculating the professor felt his safety was threatened by BK's demeanor. All MOO, obviously.

If the issue were sexist grading, that was resolved by firing him from his TAship. If the issue were sexist remarks alone, I doubt the university would take the extreme step of banning BK from campus.

But I will admit again I have been retired from academia for over 15 years. It's possible there has been a sea change in policies since I was closely involved.

I agree that is unlikely that the student conduct charges are likely not related to Title IX offenses, otherwise I think they would have added that information to the legal letter (the "Trespass" letter) indicating if that was part of the review underway. Often they are taken in tandem (both Title IX charge and Student Conduct charge), but if there were issues related to Title IX it would have to be spelled out in the Trespass notice.

Also, I doubt that it would be related to "unfair grading", since the final grade for the course and/or papers/tests/exams along the way are determined by the course professor, not the TA. So if students weren't happy with the grades they received for the course, they would have an academic appeal process, it wouldn't be handled by the Student Conduct process.

I, like you, think it could have been related to the interaction with faculty in his department, specifically related to the various stages of discipline that BK failed to meet during his disciplinary process that we all read about. The things he was supposed to be working on were not achieved, and no progress apparently was made.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If the defense makes a point that lack of physical evidence is suggestive BK didn't do the crime and/or is somehow exculpatory, would not the prosecution be entitled to address this and counter why it is not necessarily so? MOO

Sure, but that's very different from the prosecution using it against the defense. They can counter with speculation, I believe. They just can't enter speculation as evidence.

JMO. IANAL and ICBW.

 

[NCWatcher]

If that were the case, then IMO, cleaning supplies would play a role in every single homicide trial that ever occurs since everyone buys and uses cleaning supplies.

And we don't actually have evidence of cleanup in BK's apartment, at least not that we know of. Lack of blood in his apartment doesn't mean blood was cleaned up. Certain kinds of smears and areas of watered-down diluted blood mixed with a cleaning product would say clean up. We all know how hard it is to fully clean up blood. So lack of any blood except a few spots on the bedding is more likely to mean blood was never in other areas of the apartment vs it was cleaned up without a trace (even if BK possessed cleaning supplies like most everybody does.)
JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Prosecution has responded to the defense's supplemental responses to discovery x2 within the time limits. Links posted in prior posts moved to this new thread. MOO

Responding doesn't mean they've provided the information the defense is asking for, IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Respectfully, those involved know exactly what the Brady/Giglio issue is and who it involves. The fact that the information hasn't been released to the media means nothing.

I would hope any DA would look at every bit of evidence or they're not doing their job. And as far as I know that's how the US justice system is supposed to work -- you know the right to a fair trial and all that annoying stuff.

And please excuse me if I opt not to use sensationalized words or phrases to describe the tragedy of that night. I try to watch how I word things out of respect for the victims and their loved ones.<modsnip>

JMO etc etc

My statement was that nobody knows what the Brady/Giglio violation was, obviously with the gag order I was speaking of the media/public in general. I'm quite sure the DA knows exactly what is going on with it, and they've disclosed it to the Defense so they know as well.

I never suggested the DA wasn't looking at every bit of evidence they have. Perhaps I've missed something you can point out or link where they're shown not to be?


MOO

 

[jepop]

Responding doesn't mean they've provided the information the defense is asking for, IMO.

See @Sister Golden Hair's posts on the Court rules for responding within the 14 day time limit. They're very clear. That was the sole focus of my point. MOO

 

[maconrich]

My statement was that nobody knows what the Brady/Giglio violation was, obviously with the gag order I was speaking of the media/public in general. I'm quite sure the DA knows exactly what is going on with it, and they've disclosed it to the Defense so they know as well.

I never suggested the DA wasn't looking at every bit of evidence they have. Perhaps I've missed something you can point out or link where they're shown not to be?


MOO

You said, "All the warrants and affidavits dropped by the Defense is SOP to me.They're looking for anything and everything possible." Which I took to mean that the DA is just looking to look instead of doing what they're supposed to do: looking at everything with particular attention to things that could be challenged or is potentially exculpatory. IMHO they're not on a fishing expedition (so to speak). No links. Just how I took what you wrote. So JMHO.

Edited to add that you didn't mention the gag order re the Brady/Giglio violation. You say nobody knows, so that's exactly how I took it.

 

[wary]

Thanks. So the State wouldn't be allowed to present that to a jury.

I don't like that. I would like the jury to decide what weight to give it. JMO.

I think it might depend on the circumstances. Did he buy cleaning supplies in a way that implied business as usual in maintaining a household? One week before the murders? Two weeks after? No big deal.

Did he head to a supermarket five hours after the murders and buy cleaning supplies? Definitely worth being mentioned, for what it’s worth. Let the jury decide what it’s worth. If nothing else, we can add to his title of The Unluckiest Man on Earth!

And I believe there’s countless cases where the defendant buying cleaning supplies, etc. has been allowed in court.

MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

I'm not saying they'll get the case dismissed. I haven't seen anyone suggest that. But I will raise my brow at the prosecution refusing to comply thus far. No one said it wouldn't take years before going to trial. Not sure what that has to do with the prosecution giving the defense the documents they are entitled to by law.

JMO.

The case won't be dismissed because of this but it does warrant (no pun intended) an eyebrow raise. As others said above, this is their duty to provide. It's interesting because the prosecution responded to most of the requests apparently (based on the numbers of the items missing), but missed some of these key pieces. AIS, too soon to know why, but it's unfortunate, regardless. I would think it equally unfortunate if the defense failed to respond fully or adequately to the prosecution's legitimate discovery requests. jmo

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Don't we all have cleaning supplies? Sure, if he bought cleaning supplies that morning, it makes a stronger circumstantial case, but random purchasing of cleaning supplies on, say, December 2nd or some other time during the month is not evidence, IMO, since it's something that we ALL do and would be expected. MOO.

I would also add that these would need to be cleaning supplies that are obvious cleaning supplies. Things like vinegar, baking soda, and hydrogen peroxide (examples used in the previous posts) that are used so generically that they don't IMO offer much in the way of compelling reason to offer into evidence. Now, AIS, if he bought a 50-gallon tub of Blood-B-Gone and it was poured all over the walls and carpet, then yes, but there was no removal of carpet, walls, no mention of any of that, and if there had been evidence of that (evidence, not mere testing), then the evidence would have been removed and listed because evidence. We might not know exactly what LE knew, but we would have some indications of it; we have none imo.

Evidence rules are in play. Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.) | Supreme Court and while this looks like a simple list, there are volumes of case law that prove how tricky evidence rules are and how they are applied and misapplied. In this case, and with the examples cited above, one could (and I would) argue that the purchase of such generic supplies with such a broad range of uses would not, for example, meet the requirements of

Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence.
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; an
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons.
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

See @Sister Golden Hair's posts on the Court rules for responding within the 14 day time limit. They're very clear. That was the sole focus of my point. MOO

I read that. But your response was that they followed the law by responding. IMO, I don't think a judge would consider such a response by the prosecution to be following the spirit of the law, so I think the state's response is irrelevant. The facts are, the prosecution has not yet complied after 3 requests. I realize that happens a lot, but I think it's relevant to point it out.

JMO.

 

[jepop]

I agree that is unlikely that the student conduct charges are likely not related to Title IX offenses, otherwise I think they would have added that information to the legal letter (the "Trespass" letter) indicating if that was part of the review underway. Often they are taken in tandem (both Title IX charge and Student Conduct charge), but if there were issues related to Title IX it would have to be spelled out in the Trespass notice.

Also, I doubt that it would be related to "unfair grading", since the final grade for the course and/or papers/tests/exams along the way are determined by the course professor, not the TA. So if students weren't happy with the grades they received for the course, they would have an academic appeal process, it wouldn't be handled by the Student Conduct process.

I, like you, think it could have been related to the interaction with faculty in his department, specifically related to the various stages of discipline that BK failed to meet during his disciplinary process that we all read about. The things he was supposed to be working on were not achieved, and no progress apparently was made.

I think you and @Nova are closer to the mark than I was...it does makes more sense that the trespass letter relates to ongoing concerns re BK's conduct towards his proff and/or other staff. MOO

I do think WSU undertook a separate investigation into claims of sexism though. My original post cited the NYT report that BK had been cleared of accusations of sexist conduct after an enquiry that was separate from the decision to let him go as TA in 19Dec. MOO but see below.

Rather than repost the source again here hope it's ok to suggest click back through @Nova's post to mine to see the source (if needed). The thread is moving fast this weekend and that seems like an age ago already although it was only yesterday!

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Certain kinds of smears and areas of watered-down diluted blood mixed with a cleaning product would say clean up.

100%. And there would be evidence of the removal from the carpets, walls, etc. on the list of evidence removed from the apartment. LE can't just say 'we found evidence of clean up' and call that good and evidence. There would need to be physical evidence supporting that claim - otherwise, it's just speculation. AFAIK, there is nothing on the evidence list of items removed from the apartment that would suggest evidence of a clean up. edited to add: I do not mean that LE would have removed whole walls (although they might cut a section); I mean that there would be some samples or proof that the area was tested and evidence was found).

"All the warrants and affidavits dropped by the Defense is SOP to me.They're looking for anything and everything possible." Which I took to mean that the DA is just looking to look instead of doing what they're supposed to do: looking at everything with particular attention to things that could be challenged or is potentially exculpatory.

Yes, you're exactly right, the defense is doing the job they're required to do and one we should support if we support constitutional rights and the laws of the land.

I would also point out that the items cited by the defense are neither warrants nor affidavits. Warrants and affidavits have nothing to do with the discovery request (although one would suspect that all of this is tied to the crime). The defense would have full access to those documents. Warrants authorize search/seizure, the related affidavits are sworn statements supporting the reason (probable cause) for the warrant.

Editing to add: And regardless, the Defense is not dropping warrants and affidavits; the court issues the warrant and LE does the search/seizures. The defense provides defense to the person seized and against whom the evidence siezed will be used. Affidavits are sworn statements and can be given for other things as well (not just a warrant). e.g.: BF subpoena, an affidavit was provided to the court related to the request for subpoena and the judge issued the subpoena Are there different types of Subpoenas? | Office of the Chancellor)

The items requested by the defense that the prosecution has failed to deliver are specifically numbered and stated (see #1, #2, #2a, #3, #4, #5, #6 https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/050423 Motion to Compel Discovery.pdf) and have to do with items discoverable by the defense and not provided by the prosecution.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

I read that. But your response was that they followed the law by responding. IMO, I don't think a judge would consider such a response by the prosecution to be following the spirit of the law, so I think the state's response is irrelevant. The facts are, the prosecution has not yet complied after 3 requests. I realize that happens a lot, but I think it's relevant to point it out.

JMO.

IMO if the defense had failed to provide the prosecution with discoverable information, it would also be relevant. The prosecution cannot cherry pick from a list of requests and call it good. And the motion to compel is just the defense asking the court to make the prosecution do it, but following half a law is not following the law nor is responding to part of a request fully complying with it.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think you and @Nova are closer to the mark than I was...it does makes more sense that the trespass letter relates to ongoing concerns re BK's conduct towards his proff and/or other staff. MOO

I do think WSU undertook a separate investigation into claims of sexism though. My original post cited the NYT report that BK had been cleared of accusations of sexist conduct after an enquiry that was separate from the decision to let him go as TA in 19Dec. MOO but see below.

Rather than repost the source again here hope it's ok to suggest click back through @Nova's post to mine to see the source (if needed). The thread is moving fast this weekend and that seems like an age ago already although it was only yesterday!

It could well be a combination of both IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

Sorry for laughing, but I am. Definitely not at you, and not at your post. But because intent doesn't always come through in writing - unless there's clarification, which I didn't provide. So to clarify: I don't trust or believe most of what he's written - not in this article or in the ones before it.

To be specific, IMHO he might not know anything about DNA except for what he researched or looked up in order to write his article. He most likely cherry picked what info he opted to use, and I absolutely did not check for validity with anything he indicated as facts or the truth. I doubt anyone from the Idaho Lab leaked information, and if he read about or contacted the Othram Lab, I don't believe they would have said anything specific about this case.

As I'd indicated, despite (apparently) getting some things wrong, his first article was ok, but he lost me with the second, and I skipped the third. I did read the latest, and it came across as fantasy or at least fiction. I'm not a fan, and I won't be reading his book. I may or may not read any more articles by him -- I don't know.

I do agree the multi-part articles could be never-ending especially given the fact the case might be ongoing.

Again, I'm not a fan and I don't consider him a reliable source.

Edited to add all MOO, IMHO, etc

We are on the same page. I too doubt that the lab leaked the amount of DNA found. I find that ludicrous.

Since we've seen no court order for consumptive testing of the sheath, I doubt that even the lab knows exactly how much DNA will eventually be found on the sheath.

And while we're on the topic of DNA (and doing some math), the PCA has been misquoted. It doesn't say 99% of the male population could be excluded. It says this:

"At least 99.9998% of the male population would be expected to be excluded from the possibility of being the suspect's biological father," the affidavit says.

So we need a few more decimal points with which to multiply when we estimate how many men that might be.

IMO.

 

[jepop]

You said, "All the warrants and affidavits dropped by the Defense is SOP to me.They're looking for anything and everything possible." Which I took to mean that the DA is just looking to look instead of doing what they're supposed to do: looking at everything with particular attention to things that could be challenged or is potentially exculpatory. IMHO they're not on a fishing expedition (so to speak). No links. Just how I took what you wrote. So JMHO.

Edited to add that you didn't mention the gag order re the Brady/Giglio violation. You say nobody knows, so that's exactly how I took it.

Forgive me for intervening. I just want to say that I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding here and just seems so unnecessary. IMO, posts sometimes have a number of different issues combined and so much comes down to clarity and addressing one issue at a time I think. I think the stuff about the warrants - you know posters looking at them and theorising about what they mean, the PC for this or that one, the redactions and so forth, is a separate issue to the discussion about discovery. Somehow, these two topics have got conflated here? Maybe?

The OP may have been talking about both when addressing their original post to SGH.

The prosecution ofcourse should be looking to hand over possible exculpatory evidence to defense in discovery, only that's not to do with the warrants and a poster's opinion that prosecutors were looking at everything when they applied for all those warrants we see half redacted etc. MOO.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bouncing off with general comment on Discovery issues and points:
In regards to the discovery and motion to compel, atm I'm curious about the State's original Jan 23rd Response to request for Discovery. I made a long post upthread here with some questions about it but I'm not a full on legal person and I find the document complicated. I noticed that the State in responding to the Defense's Supp requests x 1 and x2 referred back to this initial Jan response. When I've cleared my mind and have sufficient time I'll study it but I'm wondering if any of the legal folk who read on here may have an opinion on it?

There may have been some discussion on it back in Jan when first released so will check that out too when I can.

MOO

 

[jepop]

IANAL, IMO, the statement in the motion to compel:
View attachment 420361
This might be pro forma. IMO.

Probably. Certainly sounds/reads like it! Legalese on all sides... MOO

 

[jepop]

They are not responding to discovery requests and without good reason, that might seem purposeful, but we can't assume yet.

I agree that it's best not to assume at this point that the prosecution has purposefully/or without a reason not responded to those specific discovery requests in the defense's motion. We don't know the reasons (or if there is a lack thereof) atm. The Court's response to the motion to compel may provide some answers, IMO. I am curious about how to interpret the prosecution's 23 January Response to discovery, which it (the prosecution) refers to when responding to the Defense's two supplemental requests. MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I agree that it's best not to assume at this point that the prosecution has purposefully/or without a reason not responded to those specific discovery requests in the defense's motion. We don't know the reasons (or if there is a lack thereof) atm. The Court's response to the motion to compel may provide some answers, IMO. I am curious about how to interpret the prosecution's 23 January Response to discovery, which it (the prosecution) refers to when responding to the Defense's two supplemental requests. MOO

Discovery can go on right up to and through trial based upon lots of things. I don't think the Prosecution here is intentionally withholding evidence from the Defense. These motions from the Defense are broad <modsnip> IMO, but hey if they don't ask, they don't get it usually.

I'll be curious to see how the Judge rules on these.

MOO