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

[10ofRods]

I agree, the expert on eye witness testimony is likely to testify about the impact of "how awake a person was" and "how dark it was in the hallway," etc.

But the defense doesn't need to accuse a witness of having been impaired, nor do they need to ask the witness this question directly. They can put other witnesses on the stand who have testimony to that effect from parties or other events that night, etc. They don't need to confront a witness directly, thus alienating the jury for this kind of action.

I doubt that a random party-goer is going to be a witness as to what exactly was inside the cups held by the housemates at the party. How would they know? I suppose if everyone was standing around drinking from a keg, they could know that beer had been sipped - but how much? People get cups and put them down and do not resume drinking them. Both of the housemates returned home fairly early, compared to the victims.

I would not be able to swear under oath that I knew someone was drinking alcohol just because they had a plastic cup in their hands. It could be soda. I'd have to watch the pour a mixed drink or get a beer from the keg, but I doubt anyone is going to then watch carefully, at a party, to see how much of the cup was drained. Not everyone drinks to drunkenness, even at a college party.

Plus, 4-5 hours would have passed since that last drink at the party. We do not even know that the two housemates partied at all that night. As a juror, I would not trust the testimony of another partier about who was drinking what. It makes no sense to use one drunken witness to impeach another drunken witness.

How is the defense going to prove that their own witness (if such exists) was sober? They have to put that person on their witness list, then the State gets to go and investigate the relevant party. There could be other witnesses who can be brought to show that Defense Witness was also drinking. It's Russian Dolls. Really weakens, rather than strengthens, the Defense's case.

IMO.

 

[jepop]

I doubt that a random party-goer is going to be a witness as to what exactly was inside the cups held by the housemates at the party. How would they know? I suppose if everyone was standing around drinking from a keg, they could know that beer had been sipped - but how much? People get cups and put them down and do not resume drinking them. Both of the housemates returned home fairly early, compared to the victims.

I would not be able to swear under oath that I knew someone was drinking alcohol just because they had a plastic cup in their hands. It could be soda. I'd have to watch the pour a mixed drink or get a beer from the keg, but I doubt anyone is going to then watch carefully, at a party, to see how much of the cup was drained. Not everyone drinks to drunkenness, even at a college party.

Plus, 4-5 hours would have passed since that last drink at the party. We do not even know that the two housemates partied at all that night. As a juror, I would not trust the testimony of another partier about who was drinking what. It makes no sense to use one drunken witness to impeach another drunken witness.

How is the defense going to prove that their own witness (if such exists) was sober? They have to put that person on their witness list, then the State gets to go and investigate the relevant party. There could be other witnesses who can be brought to show that Defense Witness was also drinking. It's Russian Dolls. Really weakens, rather than strengthens, the Defense's case.

IMO.

Succinct points. Seems so obvious but never ocurred to me to think about it that way...that a 'credible' (ie at the very least sober) witness would be required in this scenario. Russian dolls otherwise. MOO

 

[schooling]

Yes, but if she were high on Molly or acid she might have hallucinated the entire encounter. Surely you can see how a tox-screen showing significant impairment would affect how her account might be perceived.

I don't claim to know whether DM's memory of an intruder will be introduced at all or how much weight it will carry. (I fully acknowledge your point that DM never claimed to have "identified" BK, at least as far as we know.)

If this evidence is presented in a silo, sure. I guess that might fly.

But when you consider her recollection within the timeline established by the rest of the evidence it only bolsters whatever testimony she's able to provide. The time stamped video evidence of the car parking. The same kind of car used by the suspect who's DNA was found inside of the house. Xana's time stamped DoorDash order and time stamped abrupt stoppage of phone usage. The thumping sound caught on the neighbors camera also time stamped. All fittingly neatly within the approximate times she cited.

IMO Now her testimony sounds a lot more believable. The timeline of her experience is more easily accepted. Now her description of the suspect not eliminating BK matters more. Particularly if her statement was taken before she learned about the above evidence.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

Are There Limits to Attacking a Witness's Credibility?​

Yes, and it's the judge who has the final say. When a lawyer wants to impeach a witness during a trial before a jury, rules of court will often require that the lawyer tell the judge and opposing counsel in advance, alerting them to the statement that the lawyer intends to use. That preview is necessary because

the judge has the power to disallow the impeachment if the judge thinks that its prejudicial impact on the jury will outweigh its value in calling the credibility of the witness into question.

Lawyers can take various steps to attack the credibility of witnesses (known as “impeaching” a witness). There are a few basic methods that can be used to discredit witnesses:

• Cross-examination. After a witness has testified, the lawyer for the other side can cross-examine the witness, asking questions meant to elicit answers that could raise doubts about the witness’s credibility.
• Other witnesses. Whenever possible, attorneys will try to call other witnesses whose testimony contradicts or at least calls into question testimony by a witness for the other side.
• Outside evidence. Lawyers may also introduce outside ("extrinsic") evidence that isn’t directly related to the case but is relevant to a witness’s credibility, such as documents showing the witness’s financial interest in the outcome of the case, social media posts showing that the witness is friends with the defendant, or the witness’s criminal record showing prior convictions for felonies or crimes involving dishonesty. State and federal courts have different rules on what kinds of extrinsic evidence may be used to impeach witnesses.

What Makes a Witness More or Less Believable?
Juries may consider many different factors when they’re deciding whether they believe witnesses’ testimony, including:

• Do the witnesses have a personal or financial interest in the case? For instance, do they have a relationship with the crime victim or one of the parties (the defendant or prosecution)?
• Did the government offer them leniency or immunity for their own possible crimes in return for their testimony?
• Are the witnesses biased for or against either party?
• Is the testimony clear, consistent, and convincing?
• Does other evidence support or contradict what the witnesses said? This could include a witness’s own previous statements that contradict the testimony at the trial.
• Do the witnesses have a reputation for being honest and trustworthy?
• Was there anything that hindered the witnesses’ ability to see or hear the events they testified about? Do they have visual or hearing impairments? Were they under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time?
• Do the witnesses’ appearance and demeanor support or undermine their credibility? Do they appear confident or uncertain of their testimony? Juries might be less likely to believe witnesses whose age or mental condition suggests memory problems.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/whats-impeachment-of-a-witness.html

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/a-credible-witness-is-trustworthy-and-believable.html

MOO In this case there is nothing to believe or disbelieve.
She made a statement and it is consistent with other evidence.
The other roommate might be saying different things MOO and that is probably is what the defense is up to.

 

[Boxer]

I agree, the expert on eye witness testimony is likely to testify about the impact of "how awake a person was" and "how dark it was in the hallway," etc.

But the defense doesn't need to accuse a witness of having been impaired, nor do they need to ask the witness this question directly. They can put other witnesses on the stand who have testimony to that effect from parties or other events that night, etc. They don't need to confront a witness directly, thus alienating the jury for this kind of action.

Exactly. That is what the foot print is doing in the PCA, DM's statement is supported by physical evidence, and the defense wants to bury such corroboration in confusion, MOO probably with unsupported roommate statements that conflict.

Hopefully the jury is clear headed.

 

[al66pine]

Expert?

I agree, the expert on eye witness testimony is likely to testify about the impact of....

snipped for focus @Sundog
Expert?
Which expert?
An expert witness? Actual or hypothetical?

I haven't been reading all the links, attachment, etc.

 

[Justice101]

If this evidence is presented in a silo, sure. I guess that might fly.

But when you consider her recollection within the timeline established by the rest of the evidence it only bolsters whatever testimony she's able to provide. The time stamped video evidence of the car parking. The same kind of car used by the suspect who's DNA was found inside of the house. Xana's time stamped DoorDash order and time stamped abrupt stoppage of phone usage. The thumping sound caught on the neighbors camera also time stamped. All fittingly neatly within the approximate times she cited.

IMO Now her testimony sounds a lot more believable. The timeline of her experience is more easily accepted. Now her description of the suspect not eliminating BK matters more. Particularly if her statement was taken before she learned about the above evidence.

MOO

Unless there is some other MAJOR exculpatory evidence, there is so much circumstantial and actual evidence piling up, that any reasonable jury would convict him.

 

[10ofRods]

Exactly. That is what the foot print is doing in the PCA, DM's statement is supported by physical evidence, and the defense wants to bury such corroboration in confusion, MOO probably with unsupported roommate statements that conflict.

Hopefully the jury is clear headed.

The footprint must match BK as well (including what they can tell by forensic analysis of gait and toe length, etc). And the evidence provided by a footprint (latent or otherwise) is significant. Actual foot length (regardless of shoe size) should match the suspect. I assume BK's had a thorough (forensic) medical examination. I assume that forensic analysis of the footprint matches his foot, because if it didn't, I think we'd see the Defense filing a motion (it's possible they haven't come across that information in the huge discovery pile that's been delivered to them - and it is relatively minor, but if it matches, it's another piece of the puzzle).

IMO.

 

[U.N. Known]

MOO Saying you saw a specific person and this is them would be a positive identification.

DM provided a description of an intruder before BK was identified by other evidence as a suspect.

Her description of an intruder is not an identification.
Her description of the intruder does not exclude BK.

That was essentially my point with, I'll add the description was generic enough that it does not exclude a lot of men, particularly or college age. Hence, I don't find it enough to make me lean toward or away from guilt.

 

[10ofRods]

Exactly. That is what the foot print is doing in the PCA, DM's statement is supported by physical evidence, and the defense wants to bury such corroboration in confusion, MOO probably with unsupported roommate statements that conflict.

Hopefully the jury is clear headed.

The footprint must match BK as well (including what they can tell by forensic analysis of gait and toe length, etc). And the evidence provided by a footprint (latent or otherwise) is significant. Actual foot length (regardless of shoe size) should match the suspect. I assume BK's had a thorough (forensic) medical examination. I assume that forensic analysis of the footprint matches his foot, because if it didn't, I think we'd see the Defense filing a motion (it's possible they haven't come across that information in the huge discovery pile that's been delivered to them - and it is relatively minor, but if it matches, it's another piece of the puzzle).

IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Unless there is some other MAJOR exculpatory evidence, there is so much circumstantial and actual evidence piling up, that any reasonable jury would convict him.

During BK's Status Hearing his public defender, Anne Taylor, explained that Kohberger wanted his defense team to have time to review and discover new information about the case. Here is what they got:

10,000 pages of reports and other written material
10,200 photographs
9,200 tips
51 terabytes of audio/video media and digital materials

Terabytes (TB)
There are 1,024 GB in one terabyte (TB). Right now, TB are the most common unit of measurement when talking about regular hard drive sizes.

Some real-world examples:

• 1 TB = 200,000 5-minute songs; 310,000 pictures; or 500 hours worth of movies
• 10 TB = Amount of data produced by the Hubble Space Telescope per year
• 24 TB = Amount of video data uploaded to YouTube per day in 2016

How Big Are Gigabytes, Terabytes, and Petabytes?

You've no doubt heard the terms gigabytes, terabytes, or petabytes thrown around before, but what exactly do they mean in terms of real-world storage? Let's take a closer look at storage sizes.

www.howtogeek.com

How Much Is A Terabyte? TB File Size Explained - MASV

How much is a terabyte? This post drills into the nuts and bolts and explores the true weight of a terabyte (and how to move files of this size).

massive.io

 

[Sundog]

Expert?

snipped for focus @Sundog
Expert?
Which expert?
An expert witness? Actual or hypothetical?

I haven't been reading all the links, attachment, etc.

Speculation that BK's newly added attorney might bring in the expert witness who testified in her well-known case that was featured on America's Most wanted, discussed earlier on this thread.


It's interesting that the expert witness (Daniel Reisberg) who testified in Massoth's famous case has also testified before his state's legislators (Oregon) as they worked on updating state law regarding evidentiary standards for eye witness testimony in criminal cases.

His area of academic expertise and research is the science of eyewitness testimony and eye witness testimony.

I wonder if Massoth (BK's newly added attorney) will have Reisberg testify as an expert witness in this case, since he was her most important expert witness in her case of the "American's Most Wanted" individual.


edited to add link that was posted earlier on this thread related to this expert witness and BK's new attorney Massoth and her well-known case that was featured on "America's Most Wanted"

Home | National Registry of Exonerations

www.law.umich.edu

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I wondered if there are ALWAYS notes from an interview, even when the interview is taped. I find taking notes distracts me from the current conversation, and would certainly mean my eye was not always on the person I'm interviewing to catch signs of lying etc. I would probably tend to let the tape catch it all unless I were required by procedure to actually take notes. MOOooo

Good point, @maskedwoman

IMO, no written notes were taken during Det. Payne's interview, and the video (if it was one of the many (51) Terabytes of video evidence the prosecution produced in discovery) stands alone in this case.

In some professions, when "out in the field" conducting interviews and gathering information and data, there are sometimes rigid protocols requiring at least 2 people to be onsite (typically referred to as the "buddy system", or in the case of LE, "partners"), and one person is assigned to taking notes, and the other to be the active interviewer / listener.

Because as you said it may not be easy to do both, and now that we "have the technology" (interactions easily videotaped), there is no need anymore to be scribbling down notes like in the past.

For LE in this case, it could be solo interviews were par for the course and always just documented on video, so Det. Payne was likely focused on the interview and interaction in real time, and the camera rolled and that is all there is documenting that interview.

I wonder if BK's defense is asking again for any additional documentation because BK's recollection of the interview had some aspect that "more was said" than is on the video, that he thinks could be exculpatory... who knows, but in this case it seems like when the camera rolled, that's all there is.

MOO

 

[al66pine]

Sarc. Alert.

.... Pretty soon, no one will go to jail unless there is video evidence of the crime. And then the attorneys will be trying to prove the video can't be relied upon either.

Snipped for focus Ain't that the truth.
As someone said recently --- not just any old video will convince a jury; it will have to be in 4K with surround sound.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Sarc. Alert.

Snipped for focus Ain't that the truth.
As someone said recently --- not just any old video will convince a jury; it will have to be in 4K with surround sound.

Too true, probs something like this app with certified parameters:

"Timestamp Video Camera renders instrument displays for map, speed, GPS location, altitude, g-force, compass, time, date, timestamp and many more directly into your action video movie at the time it is recorded with your built-in camera. Timestamp Video Camera turns your device into the ultimate action camera. It does not only display these instrument on screen, but it renders them into the MPEG-4 video. These 'head up display' instruments are configurable and freely movable and scalable within the video frame."

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/timestamp-camcorder-gps-maps/id1108388102​

 

[girlhasnoname]

If this evidence is presented in a silo, sure. I guess that might fly.

But when you consider her recollection within the timeline established by the rest of the evidence it only bolsters whatever testimony she's able to provide. The time stamped video evidence of the car parking. The same kind of car used by the suspect who's DNA was found inside of the house. Xana's time stamped DoorDash order and time stamped abrupt stoppage of phone usage. The thumping sound caught on the neighbors camera also time stamped. All fittingly neatly within the approximate times she cited.

IMO Now her testimony sounds a lot more believable. The timeline of her experience is more easily accepted. Now her description of the suspect not eliminating BK matters more. Particularly if her statement was taken before she learned about the above evidence.

MOO

DM gave her statement to LE before BK's car was identified, but when they looked up his DMV picture it was a match to her description. Tall, slim but athletic build with bushy eyebrows; sounds pretty convincing to me.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Exactly. That is what the foot print is doing in the PCA, DM's statement is supported by physical evidence, and the defense wants to bury such corroboration in confusion, MOO probably with unsupported roommate statements that conflict.

Hopefully the jury is clear headed.

Also known as the 'spaghetti defense', let's throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks. Happens every, single time.

IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I wondered if there are ALWAYS notes from an interview, even when the interview is taped. I find taking notes distracts me from the current conversation, and would certainly mean my eye was not always on the person I'm interviewing to catch signs of lying etc. I would probably tend to let the tape catch it all unless I were required by procedure to actually take notes. MOOooo

Hah, I thought taking notes during a taped interview went out with Columbo? Seriously, I think Payne's 'interview/interrogation' was nothing more than a few general questions and nothing substantial. If the Defense has the tape, and no notes were taken, I guess they're outta luck.

Let's remember, BK was a Criminal Justice Doctorate student. He knows the law, he's not stupid, I think he likes playing games. He likes being in control IMO.

MPO

 

[Megnut]

Also known as the 'spaghetti defense', let's throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks. Happens every, single time.

IMO

Yup.

And when that fails, blame the wall.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I doubt that a random party-goer is going to be a witness as to what exactly was inside the cups held by the housemates at the party. How would they know? I suppose if everyone was standing around drinking from a keg, they could know that beer had been sipped - but how much? People get cups and put them down and do not resume drinking them. Both of the housemates returned home fairly early, compared to the victims.

I would not be able to swear under oath that I knew someone was drinking alcohol just because they had a plastic cup in their hands. It could be soda. I'd have to watch the pour a mixed drink or get a beer from the keg, but I doubt anyone is going to then watch carefully, at a party, to see how much of the cup was drained. Not everyone drinks to drunkenness, even at a college party.

Plus, 4-5 hours would have passed since that last drink at the party. We do not even know that the two housemates partied at all that night. As a juror, I would not trust the testimony of another partier about who was drinking what. It makes no sense to use one drunken witness to impeach another drunken witness.

How is the defense going to prove that their own witness (if such exists) was sober? They have to put that person on their witness list, then the State gets to go and investigate the relevant party. There could be other witnesses who can be brought to show that Defense Witness was also drinking. It's Russian Dolls. Really weakens, rather than strengthens, the Defense's case.

IMO.

Yes, and exactly how reliable is a 'fellow party-goers' testimony going to be? How much had THEY had to drink, had THEY ingested any drugs?? I don't see this as a credible threat to the surviving victims statements. DM and BF were home at 1:00 am according to the PCA.

JMO