4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 76

[CSIDreamer]

I think this is certainly plausible. I've wondered what door the DD guy used.
But regardless, it shows that the home was open from 4 a.m. to 11 a.m. to anyone who wanted to come and go.

If it was open at all. I'm on the fence about it, but certainly worth discussing.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It doesn't have to be "someone", it could be "something". JMO

Like what?

 

[wary]

The Defense can call DM as a witness and ask her anything they want. Her statements are certainly going to be pivotal to a defense, her actions, inactions, observations, who she called and when.

Let’s say that they call her as a witness and that she answers straightforwardly. Are they going to be able to grill her, impeach her, ask leading questions, etc.?

In other words, when they call her as their witness, what, if any, are the constraints on her questioning, as compared to if they were cross-questioning her?

 

[wary]

Like what?

The wind, I’d think.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Like what?

Keep reading. I replied upthread somewhere.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If the defense starts trying to grill the witness as to why 911 wasn't called sooner and gets off topic away from her description. Defense trying to open doors to what went on with other people in the house that morning. Defense has to stick to a specific line of questioning on cross examination, can't just introduce a new line of questioning or lead the witness down a "yellow brick road."

When a judge rules the objection is "sustained" it means the judge agrees the question was improper under the rules of evidence.

Some common reasons for objections include:

• Irrelevant - the testimony given after a question asked or the particular item of evidence is not relevant to the case
• Violation of the hearsay rule
• Asked and answered
• Speculative - the question calls for the witness to speculate about something
• Violation of the best evidence rule
• Leading

objection

www.law.cornell.edu

Yeah, but I think the witness' mental state is fair game. JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Re the open front door

Maybe BK left in a hurry through it?

I know he was seen by D moving to the kitchen, but maybe he changed his mind?

Maybe leaving through the front door was less conspicuous?

JMO

Right and if that's the case and the door remained open, then there was open access until the roommates woke up.

 

[PrairieWind]

If it was open at all. I'm on the fence about it, but certainly worth discussing.

I don't know that anyone has refuted the neighbor's statement, have they?

 

[CSIDreamer]

I don't know that anyone has refuted the neighbor's statement, have they?

No. Just LE saying they had no knowledge.

Here's my hangup. With nothing more than a "well the door was open at 8:30" it could even be the first floor roommate went out to get something. We have absolutely no information as to what time that first floor roommate went to the 2nd floor that morning.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Ah, got it.

I agree. A strong wind will blow most doors open if they aren't tightly closed. BK might not have pulled the door all the way shut when he left.

Someone posted the weather report just above your post. The wind wasn't strong that night. JMO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The defense will need to call the other witnesses at the scene to testify on their own behalf rather than have DM answer questions about them. There are other witnesses who were on scene that morning and this is separate information from her suspect description.

Anyone who discovers a crime scene is considered a witness. Other people came into the house that morning.

BBM. Why?

 

[Deleted member 718]

Someone posted the weather report just above your post. The wind wasn't strong that night. JMO.

Weather in November 2022 in Moscow, Idaho, USA

Weather reports from November 2022 in Moscow, Idaho, USA with highs and lows

www.timeanddate.com

Little to no wind all night. It was calm, cold and foggy.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The wind, I’d think.

Weak wind. But regardless, if it was open at 8:30 and the roommates didn't get up until 11ish, then the door was still open for 2.5 hours, unless we want to speculate the wind both opened and closed the door within minutes. I think that's a stretch. Whoever (or whatever) opened the wind, if the report is true, then the house provided open access to anyone for hours.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

No. Just LE saying they had no knowledge.

Here's my hangup. With nothing more than a "well the door was open at 8:30" it could even be the first floor roommate went out to get something. We have absolutely no information as to what time that first floor roommate went to the 2nd floor that morning.

The PCA states: "The combination of D.M.'s statements to law enforcement, reviews of forensic downloads of records from B.F. and D.M.'s phone, and video of a suspect video as described below leads investigators to believe the homicides occurred between 4:00 a.m. and 4:25 am."

That suggests the two roommates texted or spoke on the phone. If that's accurate, I can't see BF waking up, leaving the house to get something, and coming back in, yet still no one calling the police or even checking on the other roommates.

MOO.

 

[GGbankster]

Judge throws out DNA evidence in UT murder suspect’s case

Meechaiel Criner's defense has been arguing this week that a new software the Department of Public Safety used to analyze DNA evidence is not reliable.

www.kxan.com

The judge has to allow the DNA into the trial.

The defense will file motions to get it excluded. There could be a Daubert hearing contesting the prosecution's expert DNA witness or witnesses.

I saw a Daubert hearing last year, defense was trying to get shoe print expert testimony excluded.

So if DNA testimony gets before the jury then both sides will have experts to explain the DNA evidence. Prosecutors will want their expert(s) to convince the jury that Kohberger's DNA is on the sheath and he - Kohberger - put it there.

Defense will want jury to believe that there is reasonable doubt that this is even Kohberger's DNA.

Juries convict more often when they believe in the DNA evidence.

2 Cents

The potential for the defense to seek exclusion of DNA evidence from trial has been noted. However, it is pertinent to bear in mind that the final decision on admissibility rests with the presiding judge, who will evaluate the evidence's relevance and reliability.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that DNA forensics is a highly precise and sophisticated field, which may invite challenges from the defense on the prosecution's DNA expert. Nonetheless, the prosecution's expert is expected to be highly qualified and experienced, with a demonstrated ability to validate their findings in court.

Ultimately, while DNA evidence may enhance the likelihood of conviction, it is crucial for the jury to grasp the limitations and pertinence of such evidence. In this regard, the defense retains the right to question the DNA testing methods' reliability and the DNA evidence's chain of custody. Consequently, the trial's outcome is reliant on the strength of the evidence as a whole and the persuasiveness of the arguments advanced by both sides.

 

[CSIDreamer]

The PCA states: "The combination of D.M.'s statements to law enforcement, reviews of forensic downloads of records from B.F. and D.M.'s phone, and video of a suspect video as described below leads investigators to believe the homicides occurred between 4:00 a.m. and 4:25 am."

That suggests the two roommates texted or spoke on the phone. If that's accurate, I can't see BF waking up, leaving the house to get something, and coming back in, yet still no one calling the police or even checking on the other roommates.

MOO.

Well, then what's your answer?

 

[Cool Cats]

The potential for the defense to seek exclusion of DNA evidence from trial has been noted. However, it is pertinent to bear in mind that the final decision on admissibility rests with the presiding judge, who will evaluate the evidence's relevance and reliability.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that DNA forensics is a highly precise and sophisticated field, which may invite challenges from the defense on the prosecution's DNA expert. Nonetheless, the prosecution's expert is expected to be highly qualified and experienced, with a demonstrated ability to validate their findings in court.

Ultimately, while DNA evidence may enhance the likelihood of conviction, it is crucial for the jury to grasp the limitations and pertinence of such evidence. In this regard, the defense retains the right to question the DNA testing methods' reliability and the DNA evidence's chain of custody. Consequently, the trial's outcome is reliant on the strength of the evidence as a whole and the persuasiveness of the arguments advanced by both sides.

All exactly what I said. I totally agree with you.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Well, then what's your answer?

To what, how the door opened? I have no idea. That's why I'm asking lol. I think it's an interesting twist and if it's true, I think it's an important question to answer.

MOO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Let’s say that they call her as a witness and that she answers straightforwardly. Are they going to be able to grill her, impeach her, ask leading questions, etc.?

In other words, when they call her as their witness, what, if any, are the constraints on her questioning, as compared to if they were cross-questioning her?

If the prosecution calls DM as a witness, the Defense can cross examine her only within the scope of what she testified to. They can ask leading questions to a degree and be very blunt. But, then when the Defense presents its case, the Defense can call DM as their own witness and ask her whatever they want.

 

[Montecore1]

The defense will need to call the other witnesses at the scene to testify on their own behalf rather than have DM answer questions about them.

The Defense can call DM as a witness and ask her anything they want. Her statements are certainly going to be pivotal to a defense, her actions, inactions, observations, who she called and when.

Let’s say that they call her as a witness and that she answers straightforwardly. Are they going to be able to grill her, impeach her, ask leading questions, etc.?

In other words, when they call her as their witness, what, if any, are the constraints on her questioning, as compared to if they were cross-questioning her?

Yeah, but I think the witness' mental state is fair game. JMO

MOO There are questions about that morning that DM needs to answer under oath and IMO the defense and jury have the right and the need to know the answer to everything partitioning to that morning.
IMHO, I think AT will handle the questioning very well as not to seem to victimize DM but she will also not just give her a free pass because of her being one of only two surviving room mates.
I'm assuming that some of the questions will certainly be difficult but MOO they need to be cleared up one way or the other, even if the truth isn't what some are expecting or wanting to hear TWISI