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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #61
Nova said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ofcourse, good points, I didn't think of that. Makes sense, more so than my inference. MOO
 
  • #62
Sister Golden Hair said:
The defense is doing their own investigation, and in doing so, the investigator found that BF may have information that would be exculpatory. In addition, 'on information and belief' the defense states

Request No. 49 — All lab testing, including photographs and color diagrams
and bench notes including, but not limited to:
l. Copies of lab reports detailing the forensic evidence collection and analysis of items recovered at Bryan Kohberger’s parents’ home, trash cans and other receptacles, and Bryan Kohberger’s Hyundai
Elantra.

As of May 4, 2023, Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received the requested
materials, and based upon information and belief these reports contain
exculpatory information

Request No. 161 - All reports, notes, recordings and photos

As of May 4. 2023, Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received the requested materials. On information and belief Counsel believes these materials contain exculpatory evidence.

Request #49 was made in 1st Supp Request dated 2.21 and #161 was 2nd Supp Request dated 3.23, so both requests well past the 14 days mark. Exhibits to both 1st & 2nd are sealed but this motion to compel was not sealed so we got a little peek into this.

Click to expand...

Just to note because I can't edit - the State did respond to both discovery requests within the 14-day time requirement, but the State did not respond with all of the information. Therefore, motion to compel. Because we can't see the Exhibits to the 1st and 2nd, we can't compare for ourselves, but the motion to compel does bullet point the missing items. The State does not have the option to just ignore certain points, and if the Defense disagrees or there's no response, they can file a motion to compel. The Court will then act. See K below, orders for discovery.

I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov isc.idaho.gov

(f) Response to Request, Failure to File a Response.

(1) Response to Request. The attorney or defendant on whom a request has been served must file and serve a written response within 14 days of service of the request by filing the original copy with the court and serving a copy on the opposing party, which must state one or more of the following:

(A) that the response has already been complied with and that the inquiring party has been furnished the information, evidence and material listed in the request;

(B) that there is no objection to the discovery of the information, evidence and materials sought by the request and that the opposing party will be permitted discovery at a time and place certain;

(C) that the responding party objects to part or all of the information, evidence and materials sought to be discovered, which objection must be specific and state all grounds for the objection.

(2) Failure to Comply. Unless otherwise ordered by the court on a showing of good cause or excusable neglect, the failure to file and serve a response within the time required by this rule constitutes a waiver of any objections to the request and is grounds for the imposition of sanctions by the court.


(k) Orders for Discovery. If a party has failed to comply with a request for discovery under this rule, the court, on motion of a party, may:

(1) order a party to permit the discovery or inspection,

(2) prohibit the discovery of part or all of the information, evidence or material sought to be discovered, or

(3) enter such other order as it deems just in the circumstances.

An order of the court granting discovery under this rule must specify the time, place and manner of making the discovery and inspection and provide reasonable terms and conditions.
 
  • #63
Nova said:
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.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the banning story

KOHBERGER BANNED FROM WSU CAMPUS The WSU records also include a Dec. 30 letter to Kohberger threatening him with criminal trespassing if he again set foot on the WSU campus, signed by WSU Police Chief Gary Jenkins. Kohberger was served with the document the next day while he was held in jail in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, and includes his signature.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article275080871.html#storylink=cpy
 
  • #64
Sister Golden Hair said:
True, but don't you think that if they found that kind of evidence, they'd have removed some of it? And yet, it's not on the list of what's taken.

Editing to add: if there were evidence of massive chemical clean-up in the apartment, I would expect to see things like carpet samples removed, maybe some sheetrock sections, some cleaning supplies, etc. IIRC, we saw none of that, so while we don't know what LE found, we do know what they took. Pretty clearly. And WA is especially tricky with these things. For example, LE got that phone warrant for the storage unit even though the door was open and they had the key (right thing to do, but doesn't always happen).
Click to expand...
They didn't actually take everything they tested.
The other 48 tested items, including stains on towels, swabs of bathroom sinks and the shower drain, and a microwave and pizza cutter in Kohberger’s kitchen, each came back without the presence of blood. Not all tested items were seized by police. Police took the two pieces of bedding, plus the red spot that flaked off the kitchen counter, as part of more than a dozen items seized in the search, as the Statesman previously reported.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article275080871.html#storylink=cpy
 
  • #65
kittythehare said:
They didn't actually take everything they tested.
The other 48 tested items, including stains on towels, swabs of bathroom sinks and the shower drain, and a microwave and pizza cutter in Kohberger’s kitchen, each came back without the presence of blood. Not all tested items were seized by police. Police took the two pieces of bedding, plus the red spot that flaked off the kitchen counter, as part of more than a dozen items seized in the search, as the Statesman previously reported.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article275080871.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...
Right, and I never said that. But my point is that if they'd thought they needed the evidence of a major crime scene clean up, they'd have taken it. And we'd know it. They didn't take what came back negative, but they DID list what they did. The things that they did need for evidence, they did take, and they did list. They have to take it if they're using it for evidence because chain of custody, etc. So that's the whole point - not taken, not evidence.
 
  • #66
Sister Golden Hair said:
Just to note because I can't edit - the State did respond to both discovery requests within the 14-day time requirement, but the State did not respond with all of the information. Therefore, motion to compel. Because we can't see the Exhibits to the 1st and 2nd, we can't compare for ourselves, but the motion to compel does bullet point the missing items. The State does not have the option to just ignore certain points, and if the Defense disagrees or there's no response, they can file a motion to compel. The Court will then act. See K below, orders for discovery.

I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov isc.idaho.gov

(f) Response to Request, Failure to File a Response.

(1) Response to Request. The attorney or defendant on whom a request has been served must file and serve a written response within 14 days of service of the request by filing the original copy with the court and serving a copy on the opposing party, which must state one or more of the following:

(A) that the response has already been complied with and that the inquiring party has been furnished the information, evidence and material listed in the request;

(B) that there is no objection to the discovery of the information, evidence and materials sought by the request and that the opposing party will be permitted discovery at a time and place certain;

(C) that the responding party objects to part or all of the information, evidence and materials sought to be discovered, which objection must be specific and state all grounds for the objection.

(2) Failure to Comply. Unless otherwise ordered by the court on a showing of good cause or excusable neglect, the failure to file and serve a response within the time required by this rule constitutes a waiver of any objections to the request and is grounds for the imposition of sanctions by the court.


(k) Orders for Discovery. If a party has failed to comply with a request for discovery under this rule, the court, on motion of a party, may:

(1) order a party to permit the discovery or inspection,

(2) prohibit the discovery of part or all of the information, evidence or material sought to be discovered, or

(3) enter such other order as it deems just in the circumstances.

An order of the court granting discovery under this rule must specify the time, place and manner of making the discovery and inspection and provide reasonable terms and conditions.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting all this information.

RBBM: I've had a look at the State's three responses so far to Discovery and IDK (not a legal person) but perhaps/it appears that the State is asserting all three (A) (B) and (C) referred to in your post are covered in their first response dated 23 January?

In its response to defense's first supplemental response dated Feb 21, the State asserts:

"...The State incorporates its January 23, 2023, "State's Response to Request for Discovery" as if fully set forth at this point. The State has and will continue to provide discovery in accordance with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 and applicable law..."


In its response to defense's second supplemental response dated 29 March, the State asserts:

"...The State incorporates its January 23, 2023, "State's Response to Request for
Discovery" and February 21, 2023, "State's Response to Defendant's First Supplement Request for Discovery" as if fully set forth at this point. The State has and will continue to provide discovery in accordance with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 and applicable law..."


Below is the link to the State's initial response dated 23 Jan. It's a little too complicated for me at this point but it seems that perhaps what is at dispute here is the understanding/interpretation of Criminal Rule 16 and Applicable Law? State response ofJan 23 has details... point 11 might be relevant? In this initial response it does appear that your point (C) might apply? ie "..that the responding party objects to part or all of the information, evidence and materials sought to be discovered, which objection must be specific and state all grounds for the objection...". ?


Re the above, I'm not really clear other than noting the State has referred defense back to its initial response of Jan 23 on both occasions.

It will be very interesting to see how the Court responds to the Defense's Motion to compel. As I read it from your post, there might be three possible outcomes: permit the discovery; prohibit part and/or all, or; other - what seems just in the circumstances.

Also is there something in the Jan 23 state response about the state needing an inking of the defense's possible strategy in order to determine what may or may not be exculpatory to the defense? Forgive me as I am going off memory here but I do recall reading something along these lines in the Court docs - that to some extent exculpatory evidence could vary depending on defense angle. I may have this entirely wrong.

MOO
 
  • #67
jepop said:
Thanks for posting all this information.

RBBM: I've had a look at the State's three responses so far to Discovery and IDK (not a legal person) but perhaps/it appears that the State is asserting all three (A) (B) and (C) referred to in your post are covered in their first response dated 23 January?

In its response to defense's first supplemental response dated Feb 21, the State asserts:

"...The State incorporates its January 23, 2023, "State's Response to Request for Discovery" as if fully set forth at this point. The State has and will continue to provide discovery in accordance with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 and applicable law..."


In its response to defense's second supplemental response dated 29 March, the State asserts:

"...The State incorporates its January 23, 2023, "State's Response to Request for
Discovery" and February 21, 2023, "State's Response to Defendant's First Supplement Request for Discovery" as if fully set forth at this point. The State has and will continue to provide discovery in accordance with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 and applicable law..."


Below is the link to the State's initial response dated 23 Jan. It's a little too complicated for me at this point but it seems that perhaps what is at dispute here is the understanding/interpretation of Criminal Rule 16 and Applicable Law? State response ofJan 23 has details... point 11 might be relevant? In this initial response it does appear that your point (C) might apply? ie "..that the responding party objects to part or all of the information, evidence and materials sought to be discovered, which objection must be specific and state all grounds for the objection...". ?


Re the above, I'm not really clear other than noting the State has referred defense back to its initial response of Jan 23 on both occasions.

It will be very interesting to see how the Court responds to the Defense's Motion to compel. As I read it from your post, there might be three possible outcomes: permit the discovery; prohibit part and/or all, or; other - what seems just in the circumstances.

Also is there something in the Jan 23 state response about the state needing an inking of the defense's possible strategy in order to determine what may or may not be exculpatory to the defense? Forgive me as I am going off memory here but I do recall reading something along these lines in the Court docs - that to some extent exculpatory evidence could vary depending on defense angle. I may have this entirely wrong.

MOO
Click to expand...
On Thursday, Taylor also asked for all Pennsylvania police video and audio recordings from Kohberger’s arrest, notes and recordings from an interrogation of her client by Moscow police and the training records of specific officers. The defense has not received the pieces of evidence — some of which may contain information that negate Kohberger’s guilt — in prior discovery requests, she wrote.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article275080871.html#storylink=cpy



 
  • #68
kittythehare said:
On Thursday, Taylor also asked for all Pennsylvania police video and audio recordings from Kohberger’s arrest, notes and recordings from an interrogation of her client by Moscow police and the training records of specific officers. The defense has not received the pieces of evidence — some of which may contain information that negate Kohberger’s guilt — in prior discovery requests, she wrote.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article275080871.html#storylink=cpy



Click to expand...
Thank you! Head is spinning with the legalese.... there's two specific requests there where the defense talks about "belief & information" that reports contain exculpatory info.

From 1st Supp Request for Discovery:
Request N0. 49 — All lab testing, including photographs and color diagrams
and bench notes including, but not limited to:
l. Copies of lab reports detailing the forensic evidence collection and
analysis of items recovered at Bryan Kohberger’s parents’ home,
trash cans and other receptacles, and Bryan Kohberger’s Hyundai
Elantra.
As of May 4, 2023, Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received the requested
materials, and based upon information and belief these reports contain
exculpatory information...."

From 2nd Supp Request for Discovery
"Request No. 161 - All reports, notes, recordings and photos
As of May 4. 2023, Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received the requested
materials. On information and belief Counsel believes these materials contain
exculpatory evidence...."

Wonder what evidence this second one relates to? Don't really have context there. MOO
 
  • #69
jepop said:
Thank you! Head is spinning with the legalese.... there's two specific requests there where the defense talks about "belief & information" that reports contain exculpatory info.

From 1st Supp Request for Discovery:
Request N0. 49 — All lab testing, including photographs and color diagrams
and bench notes including, but not limited to:
l. Copies of lab reports detailing the forensic evidence collection and
analysis of items recovered at Bryan Kohberger’s parents’ home,
trash cans and other receptacles, and Bryan Kohberger’s Hyundai
Elantra.
As of May 4, 2023, Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received the requested
materials, and based upon information and belief these reports contain
exculpatory information...."

From 2nd Supp Request for Discovery
"Request No. 161 - All reports, notes, recordings and photos
As of May 4. 2023, Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received the requested
materials. On information and belief Counsel believes these materials contain
exculpatory evidence...."

Wonder what evidence this second one relates to? Don't really have context there. MOO
Click to expand...
They want jam on it, methinks which suggests they have very little, themselves...
they need to be specific
 
  • #70
Sister Golden Hair said:
100%, and IMO another thing that won't help the prosecution's case is failing to respond to discovery requests in a timely fashion as required by court rules. Combine that with the Brady/Giglio issue (whatever it is... but I've got my spitballs ready), the potential exculpatory evidence on two points cited in the motion to compel in addition to BF's potential testimony, and the holes in the case, and IMO there are some issues here.



Thank you. It's nice to come out here and see something nice written to me :) I think this case is baffling, and that's why I keep moving the pieces around looking for congruence. When BK was arrested and I read the PCA, I thought LE had found the right guy, but then the warrants started dropping, and even with redactions, I could see there was a lot of probable cause that factored into those warrants, and that's when my research began. Of course, without the underlying affidavits, there are leaps I can't make, but there sure are questions I can ask... and I have a lot of them.



I am definitely in agreement re the above, but bad news on the DNA - I was just citing from the article I shared, didn't really dig in at all, and no one said there would be math on WS
Click to expand...
Respectfully, BK isn't going anywhere IMO. We have a fraction of the evidence LE has shown in the PCA for the PH.

The Prosecution did come out and address the Brady/Giglio Internal Affairs situation early. I don't think it's even related to this case, but something they're investigating regarding an officer who was at the crime scene. Who really knows for sure though? Nobody. All the warrants and affidavits dropped by the Defense is SOP to me.They're looking for anything and everything possible.

We're all speculating at this point, we know very minimal details. This isn't a Courtroom, we aren't bound by the same rules of innocent until proven guilty, these boards are where we come to express our opinions based on what we know currently or how we feel about the case in general.

<modsnip>

I have no doubts about BK and I can't wait until justice comes for 4 innocent college students who were butchered that night and I'm entitled to that opinion as well. That's what makes the boards go 'round.

JMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
girlhasnoname said:
Respectfully, BK isn't going anywhere IMO. We have a fraction of the evidence LE has shown in the PCA for the PH.

The Prosecution did come out and address the Brady/Giglio Internal Affairs situation early. I don't think it's even related to this case, but something they're investigating regarding an officer who was at the crime scene. Who really knows for sure though? Nobody. All the warrants and affidavits dropped by the Defense is SOP to me.They're looking for anything and everything possible.

We're all speculating at this point, we know very minimal details. This isn't a Courtroom, we aren't bound by the same rules of innocent until proven guilty, these boards are where we come to express our opinions based on what we know currently or how we feel about the case in general.

<modsnip>

I have no doubts about BK and I can't wait until justice comes for 4 innocent college students who were butchered that night and I'm entitled to that opinion as well. That's what makes the boards go 'round.

JMO
Click to expand...
Nailed it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
kittythehare said:
They want jam on it, methinks which suggests they have very little, themselves...
they need to be specific
Click to expand...
It's usually the case that the state has the evidence because the state and its resources (LE) gathered the evidence that led to the arrest. The defense isn't necessarily expected to produce "evidence" of innocence so the two sides likely don't have equal access to evidence (although reciprocal discovery may be required.)

The defense asking for full discovery really isn't asking for something special but is required to protect the defendant's Constitutional rights. And, unfortunately, it seems like "discovery games" are not that uncommon.
JMO
 
  • #73
NCWatcher said:
It's usually the case that the state has the evidence because the state and its resources (LE) gathered the evidence that led to the arrest. The defense isn't necessarily expected to produce "evidence" of innocence so the two sides likely don't have equal access to evidence (although reciprocal discovery may be required.)

The defense asking for full discovery really isn't asking for something special but is required to protect the defendant's Constitutional rights. And, unfortunately, it seems like "discovery games" are not that uncommon.
JMO
Click to expand...
i know how it works, thanks.

In this and in most cases I follow in every state they look for the universe.

2805/050423%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20Discovery.pdf


It's neither a rare nor unusual phenomenon and it's certainly not a catastrophic one.
 
  • #74
kittythehare said:
i know how it works, thanks.

In this and in most cases I follow in every state they look for the universe.

2805/050423%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20Discovery.pdf


It's neither a rare nor unusual phenomenon and it's certainly not a catastrophic one.
Click to expand...
I agree the state withholding discovery until the last minute isn't all that unusual. It's unfortunate those games are played but they are.

JMO
 
  • #75
NCWatcher said:
I agree the state withholding discovery until the last minute isn't all that unusual. It's unfortunate those games are played but they are.

JMO
Click to expand...

Yep, totally agree. If a case is airtight, why would a prosecutor not provide all evidence to the defense in a timely manner? Some have pointed out the prosecution may be short handed and overwhelmed by the amount of evidence, which is why they requested additional help. So that’s a possible reason, but not exactly reassuring, IMO.

I’m not suggesting there is any misconduct AT ALL in this case, but I would think the prosecution would want to keep things squeaky clean—there’s too much at stake. ( edited to add that I don’t believe there is any misconduct)


“The most common incidence of prosecutorial misconduct involves the suppression or fabrication of exculpatory evidence, or evidence that might lead to the exoneration of the person suspected of the crime. Once a prosecutor publicly identifies and detains a viable suspect for a serious crime, thus satisfying public outcry and media inquiry, he or she may be reluctant to deal with any evidence or information that does not support his or her case against the suspect. This situation underscores the tension between a prosecutor’s desire for a conviction and his or her duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense”

 
Last edited:
  • #76
girlhasnoname said:
Respectfully, BK isn't going anywhere IMO. We have a fraction of the evidence LE has shown in the PCA for the PH.

The Prosecution did come out and address the Brady/Giglio Internal Affairs situation early. I don't think it's even related to this case, but something they're investigating regarding an officer who was at the crime scene. Who really knows for sure though? Nobody. All the warrants and affidavits dropped by the Defense is SOP to me.They're looking for anything and everything possible.

We're all speculating at this point, we know very minimal details. This isn't a Courtroom, we aren't bound by the same rules of innocent until proven guilty, these boards are where we come to express our opinions based on what we know currently or how we feel about the case in general.

<modsnip>

I have no doubts about BK and I can't wait until justice comes for 4 innocent college students who were butchered that night and I'm entitled to that opinion as well. That's what makes the boards go 'round.

JMO
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
Sister Golden Hair said:
Right to a speedy trial is separate and apart from discovery rules.

Criminal court rules re discovery

I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov isc.idaho.gov

(f) Response to Request, Failure to File a Response.

(1) Response to Request. The attorney or defendant on whom a request has been served must file and serve a written response within 14 days of service of the request ...

(2) Failure to Comply. Unless otherwise ordered by the court on a showing of good cause or excusable neglect, the failure to file and serve a response within the time required by this rule constitutes a waiver of any objections to the request and is grounds for the imposition of sanctions by the court.

Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct: https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/irpc.pdf

ABA Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, Rules of Professional Conduct:
www.americanbar.org

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

Advocate | The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; (b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been...
www.americanbar.org www.americanbar.org
Click to expand...
jepop said:
Thank you for posting. It's really important and essential that both sides respond within the time limits set by the court rules or consequences will apply.

Although there's not much detail there, the State actually has responded to both Supplemental Requests by the Defense within the time limits: On 21 Feb and 29 March respectively. MOO


Click to expand...
IANAL, IMO, the statement in the motion to compel:
1683466852960.png

This might be pro forma. IMO.
 
  • #78
RANCH said:
It's not unusual for murder cases to take years before they go to trial.

I guess the defense can try to get this case dismissed for the delay's in getting what they want. I kind of doubt it will work. JMO.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • #79
RANCH said:
If the State has evidence that BK purchased cleaning supplies and evidence of it's use could that be used to explain the lack of blood evidence?
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • #80
RANCH said:
I don't think it's a stretch if there's evidence supporting the destruction of evidence by buying and using cleaning supplies. JMO.
Click to expand...

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.

If I was on a jury that heard a cleaning supply purchase being used to dismiss the fact that no evidence of victim's blood was found, it would reek of desperation to me. That isn't circumstantial evidence, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Murdered - Moscow # 15
48 49 50
Replies
987
Views
230K
YaYa_521
YaYa_521
ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Murdered - Moscow # 20
52 53 54
Replies
1K
Views
188K
YaYa_521
YaYa_521
ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Murdered - Moscow # 13
48 49 50
Replies
995
Views
209K
Sillybilly
Sillybilly
ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Murdered - Moscow # 11
47 48 49
Replies
979
Views
218K
YaYa_521
YaYa_521
ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Murdered - Moscow # 19
50 51 52
Replies
1K
Views
184K
YaYa_521
YaYa_521

Members online

... and 84 more.
Total: 2,341 (members: 85, guests: 2,256)

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
2,256
Total visitors
2,341
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
633,225
Messages
18,638,215
Members
243,452
Latest member
odettee
Back
Top