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

[SpiderFalcon]

I don't know of any such requirement. There are rules when the Defense must present evidence of or assertion of an alibi etc. but the clock isn't running on those yet because the case still isn't past preliminary hearing and bound over.

This is the only item I could find about the defense's defense, from:

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/012323%20States%20Response%20to%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

 

[10ofRods]

Right on the topic of it. But, that’s a month before the date of the prelim, June 26th.

Edited to fix my misunderstanding of the date.

Gotcha. Maybe we're both still waking up!

 

[10ofRods]

This has been my supposition. If the trespass decision is related to the supposed "firing" from his TA position, it seems odd that they'd meet with him virtually, send a dismissal letter, then wait 10 days (or so) to then send a separate letter banning him from campus.

Losing one's on campus job does not equal "banned from campus." One is basically an HR decision.

The other is a disciplinary matter, taken very seriously, and usually handled by the Office of Student Affairs/Student Services (by a Vice President or Vice Chancellor in charge of some kind of investigatory committee). Where I work, there's a list of faculty volunteers from many departments and the Vice President convenes a committee by choosing faculty NOT from the department who is having the problem with a student. Often, counselors, a psychologist and police may be involved (either as committee members or as people who provide reports and background). I suspect LE was involved in this. Campus police can usually issue a temporary ban from campus, but it takes a process for it to be permanent.

HR sends the dismissal letters, it cannot ban people from campus.

Special committees (that usually include police) ban people from campus.

IMO.

 

[jepop]

dbm

 

[SpiderFalcon]

As an attorney, do you have a take on how that may play out practically? I've posted a couple of times on this thread wondering how to interpret this. It is part of the State's first Response to Defense's Request for Discovery, but the State has also referred to this Doc in their (the State's) Responses to the Defense's 1st and 2nd Supplemental Requests for discovery. Especially interested in the phrasing " ...with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted...". To me it seems to be saying something about how some exculpatory material will only be so depending on the defense's defense. What a mouthful. There must be a better way of wording this but hope you can decipher my question. MOO

I forgot to add: IANAL....

 

[jepop]

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/012323%20States%20Response%20to%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

@PrairieWind
As an attorney, do you have a take on how that may play out practically? I've posted a couple of times on this thread wondering how to interpret this. It is part of the State's first Response to Defense's Request for Discovery, but the State has also referred to this Doc in their (the State's) Responses to the Defense's 1st and 2nd Supplemental Requests for discovery. Especially interested in the phrasing " ...with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted...". To me it seems to be saying something about how some exculpatory material will only be so depending on the defense's defense. What a mouthful. There must be a better way of wording this but hope you can decipher my question. MOO

ETA: Image and link

 

[jepop]

I forgot to add: IANAL....

Posted to wrong person. Sorry! Deleted

 

[10ofRods]

I don't see what info that link supplies, except for what we already know.

Some of us were speculating as to which of BK's behaviors led to the "trespass" decision. If the decision wasn't made until Dec. 29 or 30, then perhaps it was just a general response to BK being charged with multiple homicides.

I suspect that Pullman PD and Campus Police already had strong suspicions, well before the arrest warrant. They would have taken these issues to the Campus Safety Committee (whatever it's called). Deans and VP's would have been involved - and the CJ Department itself would be involved (providing facts to this process).

I doubt it was one behavior; it was the suite of behaviors that LE and faculty both compiled (as well as students, I imagine). I figure most people started documenting some of his behavior along about the time he was following a woman to her car. IMO. His aggro attitude was likely noted by many (the students he was assigned to TA and the students in his program).

I do wonder if the on-campus process was using information coming in from Moscow PD (I assume so). I also assume that however the trespass decision was made, it had to go all the way up the chain of command before it was made public. Certainly once the charges became known, he would have been asked to stay away from campus (as it turned out, not exactly an ongoing issue, given the circumstances).

It is also possible that there was an emergency meeting as soon as the Judge signed the arrest warrant. Someone needs to do a journalistic dive into how the two campuses have been affected, it would be very interesting reading.

IMO.

 

[maconrich]

From the PCA it looks like WSU PD became directly involved in the investigation on or around 29 Nov, giving them a month to follow rules and regulations, etc regarding BK's status as a student. MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I suspect that Pullman PD and Campus Police already had strong suspicions, well before the arrest warrant. They would have taken these issues to the Campus Safety Committee (whatever it's called). Deans and VP's would have been involved - and the CJ Department itself would be involved (providing facts to this process).

I doubt it was one behavior; it was the suite of behaviors that LE and faculty both compiled (as well as students, I imagine). I figure most people started documenting some of his behavior along about the time he was following a woman to her car. IMO. His aggro attitude was likely noted by many (the students he was assigned to TA and the students in his program).

I do wonder if the on-campus process was using information coming in from Moscow PD (I assume so). I also assume that however the trespass decision was made, it had to go all the way up the chain of command before it was made public. Certainly once the charges became known, he would have been asked to stay away from campus (as it turned out, not exactly an ongoing issue, given the circumstances).

It is also possible that there was an emergency meeting as soon as the Judge signed the arrest warrant. Someone needs to do a journalistic dive into how the two campuses have been affected, it would be very interesting reading.

IMO.

I believe once BK was charged officially, he was terminated and could have been trespassed from WSU. I wonder what the by laws of WSU are in regards to student or TA being charged with a felony or four. ETA: I did find the WSU Code of Conduct linked below.

<Snipped> Link for Code of Conduct WSU

M. Emergency Authority of the University
Under WAC 478-121-237, if there is reasonable cause to believe that a student's conduct represents a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the University or any member of the University community, or poses an ongoing threat of substantially disrupting or materially interfering with University activities or operations, the president, the president's delegate, the vice president for Student Life for UW Seattle or delegates, and the chancellors of the UW Bothell and Tacoma campuses or delegates, may immediately suspend that student from participation in any or all University functions, privileges, or locations.

SGP, Student Policies, Chapter 209, Student Conduct Policy for Academic Misconduct and Behavioral Misconduct

 

[PrairieWind]

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/012323%20States%20Response%20to%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

@PrairieWind
As an attorney, do you have a take on how that may play out practically? I've posted a couple of times on this thread wondering how to interpret this. It is part of the State's first Response to Defense's Request for Discovery, but the State has also referred to this Doc in their (the State's) Responses to the Defense's 1st and 2nd Supplemental Requests for discovery. Especially interested in the phrasing " ...with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted...". To me it seems to be saying something about how some exculpatory material will only be so depending on the defense's defense. What a mouthful. There must be a better way of wording this but hope you can decipher my question. MOO

ETA: Image and link

This is likely just typical language in discovery requests and responses. Defense will object to the qualification/condition, Prosecutor will respond. As the case proceeds, discovery requests will be much more targeted and the responses as well. There may be something specific the Def is asking or OR that the Pros is wanting to withhold, but I think its just too early to tell. This might be just boilerplate language. We will see.

 

[jepop]

This is likely just typical language in discovery requests and responses. Defense will object to the qualification/condition, Prosecutor will respond. As the case proceeds, discovery requests will be much more targeted and the responses as well. There may be something specific the Def is asking or OR that the Pros is wanting to withhold, but I think its just too early to tell. This might be just boilerplate language. We will see.

Thank you so much.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The Defense filed their Second Motion to Compel on 3/24 and the State responded on 3/29 according to the Case summary, so it's not like they aren't responding in a timely fashion.

I don't expect the Judge to issue sanctions or anything drastic at all.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

5/25/2023 Cancelled Motion Hearing (10:00AM)
(Judicial Officer: Marshall, Megan Location: Courhoom 1) Vacated

Latah County CR29-22-2805

Case Summary (Updated 05/08/23)

Maybe all the Motions issues have been resolved?? IDK

 

[10ofRods]

Maybe all the Motions issues have been resolved?? IDK

That would be my guess. IDK either, but it sure looks that way.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

Maybe all the Motions issues have been resolved?? IDK

This is for the Nondissemination case. They rescheduled for May 22, I believe

 

[jepop]

The Defense filed their Second Motion to Compel on 3/24 and the State responded on 3/29 according to the Case summary, so it's not like they aren't responding in a timely fashion.

I don't expect the Judge to issue sanctions or anything drastic at all.

JMO

No biggie, but I think you might mean Defense's filing of their second Supplemental Request for discovery filed on 3/24, to which the the State responded to on 3/29. Yes, the State's response was well within the 14 day limit for filing a response.MOO

 

[PrairieWind]

The Defense filed their Second Motion to Compel on 3/24 and the State responded on 3/29 according to the Case summary, so it's not like they aren't responding in a timely fashion.

I don't expect the Judge to issue sanctions or anything drastic at all.

JMO

They are responding to the motions in a very timely manner, but they aren't providing the requested information in a timely manner. It has been 4 months. Why can't this information be provided?

 

[Boxer]

Interesting. You put alot of research into this.

It's pretty much game over if BK cut himself at the crime scenes and forensics finds his blood in or outside the house. Especially mixed in with the victim's blood or in the same room with the victims but really anywhere on the property.

Yes the defense could say he visited the King Rd property and left bodily evidence at that time but it would depend on many factors.

DNA on a knife sheath in a bed next to a victim is not the same as his fingerprint on a toilet handle for example. Any bodily evidence from him on/next to/mixed with, etc.. a victim is hard to defend. Blood is harder to account for then leaving a fingerprint on a door handle.

But then it could backfire. If he says he visited there but there is not one fingerprint, not one shread of evidence of his being there, isn't that suspicious?

His blood in his car or in his apartment can be explained as him bleeding from a nose bleed to any number of things but it would depend on how much blood, where is it located, is his defense of how he was bleeding believable?

Victim's blood in his car or in his apartment would be extremely difficult to defend. Even if he said he gave a ride to the victim or had them over to his apartment, still difficult to explain.

Then that plays into the prosecution narrative that BK knew some victims and stalked them. Also, forensics would expect to also find their fingerprints in his car and apartment. Again, that defense could backfire.

It's pretty clear that BK's blood on the King Rd property would be difficult for the defense, if not impossible to defend. A little easier if his blood is in his car or apartment. But pretty much game over if any victim's blood is found in his car or apartment.

MOO impossible to defend unless he did in fact visit.

And even then, the DNA on a murder weapon carrying case where the victims were murdered with that type weapon, found next to the body of a victim is indefensible in my opinion.

That he may have attended a party or for that matter briefly dated a roomate for instance is not going to be exculpatory.

 

[10ofRods]

They are responding to the motions in a very timely manner, but they aren't providing the requested information in a timely manner. It has been 4 months. Why can't this information be provided?

Maybe because the State doesn't have it? Perhaps there is no body cam or recording of Det. Payne. And maybe Pennsylvania has failed to produce its documents in a timely fashion to either side?

I do believe that the documents produced would have to be properly provided (directly from the source) and not, for example, merely photographed on some person's cell phone. IOW, the reports from PA should be official, right?


IMO.