4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 73

[BeginnerSleuther]

I suspect DAs have a natural affinity for police officers, and judges may have as well. I doubt any of them have "no opinion" at the start of a trial.

But they don't have to have "no opinion" at the start of a trial. They're not the ones deciding someone's fate. They're expected to their jobs, for which they have trained for years, professionally, and I believe they can even with an opinion. Their duty isn't the same as jurors.

Yet, the system depends on DAs to charge fairly and on judges to be unbiased as to guilt or innocence.

For this to be true, such persons have to be able to compartmentalize their preconceived notions of guilt and innocence, just as jurors are asked to do. True, judges are professionals, but they aren't the only professionals who are required to hold their judgments in abeyance while they look at evidence. The same is true of scientists and other academics. Even theater critics (at least in theory)!

Individual results will vary, of course.

Compartmentalizing what you "feel" in order to do your job by the book is easier, IMO. I'd argue that most of us do that every day in our jobs. I'm talking about ordinary citizens "unseeing" things they've seen. Pretending they don't know things they know. Those things absolutely color your opinion which is why so many already have a guilt-or-innocence opinion in this case. I'm going to give a wild example and I know this would never happen, but just as an example to illustrate my point, I ask that you go with it. Let's say the judge says "you can't introduce the cell phone evidence in the trial" for whatever reason. So let's say jurors who didn't really study the case or the PCA (again, it's just an example and I know it wouldn't happen) don't remember anything about BK's cell phone, but the jurors who were sleuthing this case not only know his cell pinged in the area 12 times before the murders, but they also know that the cell was turned off at the time of the murders and that the cell pinged in the area the morning after the murders. Do you really expect a juror to forget that tidbit? Because, IMO, even if the juror tries to, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to do that.

I'd also say that there are many possibilities for seating a jury. I would be shocked to find either a defense attorney or prosecutor who would seat an active BK sleuther on the BK jury. Again to clarify, I'm not saying that sleuthers can never serve on any jury. I'm saying that I wouldn't want someone on the jury of the case they sleuthed.

I'll agree that it's difficult to come up with 12 totally impartial individuals who don't serve in various professional capacities that could color their views AND who aren't connected to victim or defendant and who don't know much about the case AND don't sleuth, etc, etc, etc. I get it. I'm just saying that to me, seating jurors with engaged in thorough sleuthing of the case (as us here on this thread) is not my idea of justice. Obviously, YMMV.

MOO.

 

[rsd1200]

And I am positive that I could find ways to help either side improve their case, ha. I love taking the opposite side of a problem.

I agree that in a small town, there's way more to worry about at VD than just who joined WS. Fortunately, when they hire a Jury Consultant who does SM analysis, WS identities do not come up in their reports (FB, NextDoor, sometimes Twitter).

MOO.

I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate. My parents were both ones for polite debate and felt that a debate class, should be required in high school. They felt that defending a topic that you are against, forces you to look at more angles, and possibly see something that makes you look at the argument you are for, in a different perspective. If that makes sense.

 

[10ofRods]

Well put. If we were going to continue in this vein, I suppose we need to define terms like "sleuth" and "casual".

I've been posting quite a bit of late and I realize I know more about the case than most of my friends and family.

Nonetheless, I consider myself a "casual". I couldn't tell a Van shoe from a Nike. LOL.

On a related note, I have been doing a lot of research on the question of whether a noted figure from religious scripture ever existed in history. I have formed an opinion, but I am well aware my opinion is only based on what is "probable"; nobody can know "beyond a reasonable doubt". And I would vote accordingly if I were appointed to panel on the subject. (I have worded this carefully. Please don't let's guess which personage I mean.)

Did "we" ever come up with those definitions??

 

[Nova]

Social media has certainly changed how potential jurors can access info about a crime. One Facebook group for the Moscow murders has almost 300,000 members and a popular Reddit group has over 130,000 members. I have no idea as to the TikTok numbers. I understand the majority aren't from Latah County but I'd venture a guess that many are. With 24/7 news cycles and info available at the click of a mouse, how will this affect selecting a jury of the defendent's peers?

We've certainly moved past gaining our info from the evening news.

Well put. And that raises yet another question as to whether there is any point in moving a trial nowadays. Are those of us 1,500 miles away necessarily less knowledgeable than those who are 15 minutes away? Not any more.

 

[Nova]

Did "we" ever come up with those definitions??

I thought Sleuther did, but then the convo wandered.

 

[10ofRods]

Well put. If we were going to continue in this vein, I suppose we need to define terms like "sleuth" and "casual".

I've been posting quite a bit of late and I realize I know more about the case than most of my friends and family.

Nonetheless, I consider myself a "casual". I couldn't tell a Van shoe from a Nike. LOL.

<modsnip - off topic>

Did "we" ever come up with those definitions??

I can easily tell a Van's from a Nike - if that's the qualification. Didn't need to sleuth anything. Still do not consider myself much of a sleuth. I am trained in observation and have lived a long time, that's all.

<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>

 

[Nova]

But they don't have to have "no opinion" at the start of a trial. They're not the ones deciding someone's fate. They're expected to their jobs, for which they have trained for years, professionally, and I believe they can even with an opinion. Their duty isn't the same as jurors....

I'll agree that it's difficult to come up with 12 totally impartial individuals who don't serve in various professional capacities that could color their views AND who aren't connected to victim or defendant and who don't know much about the case AND don't sleuth, etc, etc, etc. I get it. I'm just saying that to me, seating jurors with engaged in thorough sleuthing of the case (as us here on this thread) is not my idea of justice. Obviously, YMMV.

MOO.

I understand that different parties have different functions. Let's set aside DAs. They are advocates and I shouldn't have included them in the mix.

But even when they aren't the "trier of fact", judges are expected to rule as if they had no stake in the outcome of the trial. If the judge can set aside his/her knowledge of the cell phones pings (per your example), why can't I as a juror?

In my real life example above, I mentioned a couple of things we jurors had to set aside. That the defendant was constantly guarded and kept in irons certainly suggested he was the "type" to commit armed robbery, but that was something we had to "forget".

Frankly, if all the evidence against BK were just what we already have heard and I was told to disregard the cell phone evidence, I suspect I'd be voting "Not Guilty", DNA be damned! (I find the phone being turned off and turned back on particularly damning, but I could ignore it if instructed to do so.)

 

[Boxer]

I agree with Beginning Sleuther about the difference between casual follower of the case versus sleuthers. I also wanted to point out that the defense is not required to change a juror's mind. Rather, the prosecution is required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, with the defense pointing out weaknesses in their case and protecting BK's rights throughout the process. I think a good argument can be made that anyone whose mind needs to be changed about BK's guilt should not sit on the jury. MOOooo

Agree, and I don’t think being familiar with the case compromises a potential juror, only having mind made up in advance. And that is independent from knowing a lot about the case.
For instance a lot of people assume guilt just because the defendant was arrested, with no familiarity with the case.
They would not be good on a jury either, for the same reason, making mind up prior to hearing out the prosecutor and defense attorney.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I understand that different parties have different functions. Let's set aside DAs. They are advocates and I shouldn't have included them in the mix.

But even when they aren't the "trier of fact", judges are expected to rule as if they had no stake in the outcome of the trial. If the judge can set aside his/her knowledge of the cell phones pings (per your example), why can't I as a juror?

I don't believe the judge just forgets that information exists. I believe the judge is well-trained enough to know what is and isn't relevant, per the law and the framework of the Constitution, in trying a case and I personally believe that most of them are able to keep that separate.

In my real life example above, I mentioned a couple of things we jurors had to set aside. That the defendant was constantly guarded and kept in irons certainly suggested he was the "type" to commit armed robbery, but that was something we had to "forget".

Frankly, if all the evidence against BK were just what we already have heard and I was told to disregard the cell phone evidence, I suspect I'd be voting "Not Guilty", DNA be damned! (I find the phone being turned off and turned back on particularly damning, but I could ignore it if instructed to do so.)

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[10ofRods]

Agree, and I don’t think being familiar with the case compromises a potential juror, only having mind made up in advance. And that is independent from knowing a lot about the case.
For instance a lot of people assume guilt just because the defendant was arrested, with no familiarity with the case.
They would not be good on a jury either, for the same reason, making mind up prior to hearing out the prosecutor and defense attorney.

Agreed.

Most people are capable of applying reason to a set of facts. In a trial, it's much like a classroom: the set of facts are presented and the "students" (jury) are tested on their ability to reason about them. It doesn't take much these days to remind the jurors that they ought not to assume guilt just because of LE and a DA. Older people do this more than younger people, IME.

I do think some people think a person is guilty just because arrested (but IME, when the PD tells them this is not true in the opening statement, that works). Most people defer mentally to the circumstances of court and what the Judge tells them.

The problem with elderly juries is that they are less likely to realize that LE is not always right. IME, and IMO. Too tired to go find citations, but I think the research on juries shows that having a good mix of ages is a good thing. Not possible with long trials or with death penalty juries. One also doesn't want a lot of jurors who think LE is always bad (that's an issue here where I live).

Still, as far as I am concerned, the system usually works. IMO.

 

[wary]

I think if the defendant wants to argue that these 4 college kids were murdered because one of their mothers has a drug problem, he's going to prison for LWOP at a minimum. It's a stupid argument, first, and one that will alienate jurors.

If it’s such a stupid argument, why is it such a common argument of defense attorneys? And in this case, an attorney who had the ability to throw family members of the victims to the wolves could actually make a plausible argument. (Often, the defense attorney just has to invent cartel members or drug connections out of thin air.)

That’s where that pesky conflict of interests comes in.

MOO

 

[WingsOverTX]

If it’s such a stupid argument, why is it such a common argument of defense attorneys? And in this case, an attorney who had the ability to throw family members of the victims to the wolves could actually make a plausible argument. (Often, the defense attorney just has to invent cartel members or drug connections out of thin air.)

That’s where that pesky conflict of interests comes in.

MOO

RBBM
Touché!

 

[wary]

Well put. And that raises yet another question as to whether there is any point in moving a trial nowadays. Are those of us 1,500 miles away necessarily less knowledgeable than those who are 15 minutes away? Not any more.

I think that the case may have more of an emotional impact on the ones who live 15 minutes away, even though the knowledge levels might be the same.

 

[10ofRods]

Being a judge takes intellect and not just training. There are new judges with less experience who, IMO, are amazing. There are judges who have done all kinds of extra training but lack what I think is useful or important. OTOH, there are some very well educated judges, who have done lots of training, but lack what I consider to be the intellect/reasoning capacity to be effective at their jobs.

I don't put my faith in any particular sector of the judicial system. But if I am a juror, I intend to do that one job with the best I can give it. I am not pro-DP and we don't have qualified juries for the DP in most trials here, but I would consider the law in this matter (and therefore, would consider the DP; it's not an absolute for me). If I were the only juror who was opposing the death penalty and it was a DP or nothing kind of trial, I'm not sure what I would do. I would have to hear the facts.

This POV came to me via the father of Polly Klaas, who gave a cogent and heartbreaking reason to give his daughter's murderer the death penalty. It needs to be considered. Victims' experience (including their non-rational experiences) need to be considered within the judicial system. IMO.

I don't think one can train to be a good judge, I think it's a kind of gift. Since not every appointee has this gift (although many do - I've been surprised at what the Call of Duty can do with a person), I don't think every judge is good at their craft. But more training is not, IMO, the answer. It's a soul thing, maybe, a deep sense of Justice within the self, within the mind.

IMO.

 

[Cassady]

Jury consulting experts have actually expanded. They have just maybe turned away from your area of expertise. It is expensive, so it isn't available to many, and this is in the criminal and civil forum. People are good about answering specific fact questions, but very poor in admitting to biases. If I were to find a potential juror was a websleuths member, I would be priveledged to a wealth of information that person never imagined. Is that person generally pro or anti law enforcement? Interested in social justice causes. Do they tell the truth? Their posts/profile will answer that. Social media can play a similar role. What do you post? How often, when? About what and who? I can learn what news sources you watch/read. I can identify jurors that identify with my case and those that are likely unfriendly. Can I eliminate them for cause? I can if I can show they fudged their jury questionnaire.

These are all amazing points.

If you take this discussion outside of this case, it might be easier for people to see what sort of things attorneys look for when seeking to remove for cause during VD.

For example, let's say party A is injured in an accident with party B. If their case proceeded to trial and in a questionnaire or in VD a potential juror answered that they had done online research about the accident and the litigants, that would lead to further inquiry. If upon further inquiry the potential juror indicated that not only did they research the case and litigants online, they engaged in discussions, including "speculation", about the case with others online, both attorneys for the litigants would likley agree to remove the potential juror for cause.

That would be equally true in a criminal case as well.

All IMO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

These are all amazing points.

If you take this discussion outside of this case, it might be easier for people to see what sort of things attorneys look for when seeking to remove for cause during VD.

For example, let's say party A is injured in an accident with party B. If their case proceeded to trial and in a questionnaire or in VD a potential juror answered that they had done online research about the accident and the litigants, that would lead to further inquiry. If upon further inquiry the potential juror indicated that not only did they research the case and litigants online, they engaged in discussions, including "speculation", about the case with others online, both attorneys for the litigants would likley agree to remove the potential juror for cause.

That would be equally true in a criminal case as well.

All IMO.

Thank God. I was starting to lose faith in our justice system. I want nothing more than a fair trial, conviction, and life sentence for the person who killed these 4 kids.

 

[deugirtni]

...

Nobody claims the jury system is perfect, but eliminating jurors who are well-informed hardly seems a step in the right direction. (Exception: we've all heard of rare instances of internet sleuths who cross the line into vigilantism. You and I will agree they should be excused, but most of us here are not of that ilk.)

RSBM. I'm always behind, so please disregard if already covered, but... 'well-informed' according to whose perception? Well-informed via what information from where and how would either side know if the info was accurate, or a rumor, or a misunderstanding, or an assumption made after hearing a piece of 'information' from somewhere, or a misperception, or how things were put together in one's mind to come to what conclusions after hearing different pieces of information? Therein lies the dilemma. imo.

 

[Odeto BJ]

RSBM. I'm always behind, so please disregard if already covered, but... 'well-informed' according to whose perception? Well-informed via what information from where and how would either side know if the info was accurate, or a rumor, or a misunderstanding, or an assumption made after hearing a piece of 'information' from somewhere, or a misperception, or how things were put together in one's mind to come to what conclusions after hearing different pieces of information? Therein lies the dilemma. imo.

It is a dilemma; and its intensifying and expanding at a great rate and will expand logarithmically in the future. We are bombarded with information; much of it has already been processed and conditioned for presentation such that it promotes emotionalism; and we have competing new sources emphasizing different aspects and elements of the case. Realistically the prejudices against a defendant should be most intensive to those most threatened, therefore proximity tends to promote prejudice....This case in particular raises emotions beyond the personal security issue due to the nature of the victims and there vulnerability in simply pursuing their everyday life, and frankly gets a lot of gray ink.
Of course we cannot limit jurors to those without information of any sort....I believe we are not far from managing juror behavior via incentives...
Which leads to Professional Jurors?? Oh boy...
JMVOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

What many people do remember of Kohberger from his high school years was his considerable weight loss. The dramatic change occurred between his junior and senior years, Arntz and two other former friends said. Kohberger started kickboxing every day after school and running in the evenings with a neighbor, Arntz said. He also became hyper-focused on what he ate, his friends recalled — to the point that he developed an eating disorder that required hospitalization, Jack Baylis, 28, another of Kohberger’s inner circle at the time, told the Statesman. Arntz estimated that Kohberger weighed more than 300 pounds and the amount he lost was as much as half his body mass. And it was so rapid that Kohberger had tummy tuck surgery because he was left with so much excess skin, Arntz and Baylis said. Kohberger’s high school yearbook photos from his sophomore through senior years, reviewed by the Statesman, showed his physical transformation.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article272531864.html#storylink=cpy

 

[maskedwoman]

Apropos of nothing -- I was just scrolling Twitter when I came across the phrase "he slid into her DMs".

It caught my eye and I looked with interest, assuming this case was being discussed, but no, it was unrelated.

It was, however, referring to a man who was sending uninvited and unwelcome messages to a woman.

So I guess it's a known phrase, though still not something a professional (in either LE or in journalism, in my opinion) should be using in a formal document.

MOO

Can you refresh my memory? Was it used in a formal document? I thought it was just a quote from an anonymous source, used in a news report. I must have missed something.