4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #100

[Megnut]

Of course it is, which is why they wanted open hearings.

That doesn’t help them make their argument to the judge, but it does allow them to spread misinformation to the public.

The same misinformation that seemed to annoy the judge in his orders.

Wish I would have been invited to the Defense team after-party. That was a smack down and I want to know if it came as a surprise. I want to know if it worked, for their purposes, how ever they define or measure it.

Because watching it was second-hand cringe.

Me, I wouldn't want that on blast but people ARE talking, some are believing the State purposefully didn't test evidence, that there is bias and discrepancy, and that immaterial things matter more than material ones so I guess, if she can pull even one juror from that pocket, the hearing was a win. But ouch. I picture her with a long night, and a hot water bottle upside her head.

No one can cite ineffective counsel here. She's all in. Vigor.

She's just got nothing to work with! Public energy over general expectations privacy. Great topic but doesn't even apply.

There's just nothing pointing away from BK!

I don't think she can mount an alibi defense -- she told the judge she WOULD BE (once she mined all the data in the metauniverse to find a corner of the world to pretend BK's Elantra parked and a different one emerged).

She can't mount a SODDI defense IMO. She can attempt to cast doubt on cross examinations of course, insinuate others had motive and means, but to actually present a SODDI, she'd have to show the court there's a case to be made for a certain individual.

Of course, she's not required to mount a defense at all. She may choose only to try to discredit the State's witnesses and theories.

That's all she can do IMO, short of wearing lead boots and banging on the table with her feet. I don't think there's an attorney anywhere who could do a better job.

It's just an impossible one.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

Finding information like what I mentioned is exactly one of the reasons why defense teams have investigators. And yes, if they can unequivocally present information like in the Lukis Anderson case to the prosecutor's office/police before trial, they can and do get charges dropped against their clients.

And they bring those things up at trial all the time--so, when cross examining the ISP lab manager or someone from Moscow police..."are you aware that person X who was one of the chain of custody people for the sheath, lived 2 doors down from Mr. Kohberger and had to use the same door knob as him to go through their shared hallway? Isn't it true that touch DNA can transfer from a knob to another person, who can then transfer it to an item?"

Do you really think that if AT could get testimony from a military surplus store clerk that BK was at their store one day looking at and testing knife sheaths, didn't buy one, but here's a receipt for some other item they purchased that day, that she wouldn't present it at trial?

This is a defense team that is spending their time challenging huge issues like the death penalty, IGG & privacy, etc....and yet it's not her job to pursue and present information to challenge the defense?

Of course if the defense has found exculpatory information getting it on the record in court for jurors (or the judge in a bench trial) makes perfect sense. But the post I was responding to when I posted the blurb of mine you quoted SEEMED to suggest a successful defense must involve presenting information in court that exonerates the client. And that's not true IMO. Defense attorneys don't have to have Perry Mason moments. It's up to the state to prove their case, it's not required the defense disprove the state's case nor is it required the defense present information needed to convict a different person of the crime.
MOO

 

[Megnut]

Great summary with one correction: the two surviving roommates were not both sleeping on the first floor.

The first line on page 4 of the 12/29/2022 affidavit reads: "D.M. stated she originally went to sleep in her bedroom on the southeast side of the second floor; D.M. stated she was awoken at approximately 4:00 am..."

(I think this remains an open question. As DM was originally on what we could argue was the 2nd -- middle floor -- and may have, before morning, left her room to join BF on the actual 1st floor (lowest level, but 1st floor, street level).

JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

@StarryStarryNight @gremlin444

I so appreciate both of you sharing your own familial experiences with OCD.

Somewhere up above, I posted my impression of why his OCD may not have limited BK in his acts of murder, nor compel him to stay behind, for hours, to clean up this enormous crime scene.

Mine is just speculation though, and I’ve learned more through what you have both shared. It has to be exhausting for you both.

It certainly gives more insight into BK.

IMO

Thanks, Arkay.
I share my experiences here only because so many people have got it so wrong about OCD. The overly clean thing drives me crazy. Like @gremlin444 said, if only that applied to my son!
You could sit ten people with OCD in a room and have ten entirely different stories about their rituals and how deeply or not it affects their lives.
A sense of humor is vitally important for friends and family!
Thanks for listening, thanks for caring.

 

[mrjitty]

Of course it is, which is why they wanted open hearings.

That doesn’t help them make their argument to the judge, but it does allow them to spread misinformation to the public.

The same misinformation that seemed to annoy the judge in his orders.

As you know, i come from a different legal tradition, and I really take a dim view of what AT is doing. Now her house of cards came crashing down, it's clear the only people she was fooling were her social media fans.

Good luck to her in the evidential phase, but resorting to Franks as a venue for conspiracy speaks to the weakness of her case IMO.

Of course the jury will never know that.

 

[mrjitty]

Of course if the defense has found exculpatory information getting it on the record in court for jurors (or the judge in a bench trial) makes perfect sense. But the post I was responding to when I posted the blurb of mine you quoted SEEMED to suggest a successful defense must involve presenting information in court that exonerates the client. And that's not true IMO. Defense attorneys don't have to have Perry Mason moments. It's up to the state to prove their case, it's not required the defense disprove the state's case nor is it required the defense present information needed to convict a different person of the crime.
MOO

This misrepresents what I said, so I'd like to respond.

While it is clear the defence need not present any evidence, or indeed any positive case, the rules of evidence change that position where the defence wishes to make positive assertions. This is especially because AT cannot herself testify to any facts.

For example, if the prosecution expert says the the cellular data places the defendant in the kings road at a suspicious time, AT cannot herself, allege it places him elsewhere. Similarly she cannot testify about DNA, or say that the defendant was star gazing, without some kind of evidential foundation

This is why I maintain that in practice, the rules of evidence will require AT to produce expert witnesses and exhibits to support the defence version.

For example, to even get 'star gazing' into evidence, AT will need something - like maybe an email the defendant sent to a friend about his love of stargazing. Strictly speaking AT cannot simply say this based on nothing.

So I stick by my assertion that as a practical question, AT can't simply speculate that the cow jumped over the moon.

Which is why she has hired a DNA expert who will try and sell to us a story about a very special cow.

IMO

 

[Kudzuu]

That's all she can do IMO, short of wearing lead boots and banging on the table with her feet. I don't think there's an attorney anywhere who could do a better job.

Well you have convinced me of this. I was thinking she wasn't very bright and inarticulate for a lawyer. Then the lightbulb went off. She is a defense lawyer and a female. Sometimes juries dislike smart assertive lawyers (Marsha Clark and the Menendez's lawyer e.g.).

She has to defend BK and she has nothing so the last thing she needs is to be unlikable to the jury. So her only hope is to confuse and try to make the jury feel badly for her case and maybe doubt...

The Murdaugh trial I watched and realized how much people disliked Harpootlian or whatever his name is that it must be hard to be impartial when you despise the lies and the bullying he did of the witnesses. If it hadn't been for that video the case wasn't a slam dunk.

 

[mrjitty]

AT is looking for a jury nullification IMO.

Judge isn't going to stand for any tomfoolery.

 

[Justice101]

RSBMBFF,

“That is only corroborating evidence if they can prove it was HIS white Elantra. There is no proof of this as far as I know. There's no video that shows the driver or gives any evidence that it is his car.”

Respectfully, IIUC and IMO that might not need to be the case. At least not in this case of suspect BK in Idaho. IANAL nor associated with this case. Yet it seems such a premise above is where the matter of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and ‘all’ doubt might enter.

From the evidence pointing to the accused BK released thus far publicly or in court filings, authorities might only need to show that it was A white Elantra.

And fortunately, perhaps it will be more apparent once this trial starts. And when evidence is presented before a jury. Until that time it is difficult to know what other evidence exists and will enter, and there is a gag order in place.

I cannot count how many times either in these threads or on a true solved-crime episode on TV there is grainy video of a vehicle seen at a distance in a poor resolution CCTV or surveillance camera. And those images, once either studied by knowledgeable experts, refined, or compared with other factors and evidence in the case - help lead to a conviction. MOO

All it needs to be is "consistent" with being BKs... and in all of these cases where the prosecution lays out all the circumstantial evidence... along with DNA, IMHO the prosecution will have an easy time of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that BK is the killer.

 

[ilovewings]

Bryan Kohberger makes drastic change to his defense ahead of trial

Quadruple murder suspect Bryan Kohberger faced yet another blow in his case just after a judge announced that DNA evidence would be allowed in his upcoming trial.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[LinasK]

BBM. What murder weapon?

The knife used to kill the victims. The sheath is considered part of the weapon since it was used to hold the weapon- same as a gun holster.

 

[LinasK]

90. Having at least one other white Elantra would be enough to exclude BK's Elantra as the sole vehicle linked to the crime scene. There is no evidence that BK has ever been to that house. There are no videos, no fingerprints on any immovable parts of the house, and no other links.

That you know of. I think at trial the evidence of this will come out.

 

[LinasK]

So what? BK is not an ordinary man, and he has a diagnosis to confirm that. However, this speaks more in his defense than against him. I find it hard to picture someone with OCD not putting the sheath back on a $300 knife and walking out of the house without a thorough clean-up. In fact, his specific traits make him an unlikely candidate to actually use a knife for murder, even if he wanted to commit one. He is too clumsy for such an exercise. JMO.

Yet many murderers are as you described "clumsy". He didn't count on there being bedmates and roommates. His goal was his target of one girl in particular. I think it was Kaylee. He lost the sheath in the struggle and didn't realize it until he'd left the house.

 

[LinasK]

It was very dark in that room so hard to see....and I wonder if:

1) BK didn't know he dropped the sheath out of his (presumed) pocket ... or

2) BK left the sheath there on purpose because he had thought he had meticulously cleaned the sheath ahead of time and was wearing gloves at the time of the murders. But he forgot the bloody inside of the snap. With his background an studies, part of me thinks he was fascinated/admired serial killers and wanted to be know as the "knife sheath murderer". And would probably do it again over the years.,

More likely he was unaware.

 

[LinasK]

Much ado about nothing, it seems. The presence of touch DNA on an item only indicates that the person had contact with the object at some point. It does not necessarily mean that the person was involved in the crime. Without the knife itself, there is no direct evidence linking the sheath to the actual murder weapon. The knife could have been discarded, stolen, or replaced, making it impossible to conclusively determine that the sheath belonged to the murder weapon. The timing and location of when the DNA was deposited on the sheath are crucial factors. The DNA could have been placed on the sheath days, weeks, or even months before the crime occurred, making it difficult to establish a direct connection between the DNA and the crime. To establish a clear link between the sheath and the crime, the chain of custody must be meticulously documented. Any gaps or inconsistencies in the chain of custody could raise doubts about the reliability of the evidence.

When it's HIS sheath under the murder victims. It's not a leap from circumstantial evidence to think he's guilty. There's zero reason for his knife sheath to be there. Circumstantial evidence is very powerful. It's just not logical for someone else to have planted his sheath there even IF it was "stolen, discarded, replaced"- of which is all conjecture anyhow.

 

[INfisherman]

So, how many times was our boy’s car driving by this house weeks prior, the night prior to the crime & then again shortly thereafter but a bit faster than normal? Then again the next morning was it?

And our boy’s DNA is found in this house. Was that last drive by to see the attention he may have attracted, pick up a wrong address delivery for a vegan Thai food order or was it an attempt to retrieve something of which he realized he was no longer in possession?

I just wonder if a jury is going to try & pick away at each possibility of an excuse or if the weight of the totality of evidence will be so cumbersome, once it’s all laid out, that they have just one logical conclusion, regardless of how many people were out walking around at 4AM?

BK’s cheeks ought to be puckering if they aren’t already, courtesy of any cell mates.

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

as a thought experiment keep all facts of the case the same except BK dropped his drivers license at the scene.

Does the unknown blood still prove anything?

why not?

Oh, but the driver's license is a very different thing.
How often would you drive around without one?
A driver's license, a cellphone, maybe a credit card or a phone-linked pay are necessary. Maybe a gun for some. The chance of leaving these somewhere accidentally is really slim.

Now, the knife sheath is different. I can imagine it being left somewhere and never retrieved.

 

[LinasK]

Oh, but the driver's license is a very different thing.
How often would you drive around without one?
A driver's license, a cellphone, maybe a credit card or a phone-linked pay are necessary. Maybe a gun for some. The chance of leaving these somewhere accidentally is really slim.

Now, the knife sheath is different. I can imagine it being left somewhere and never retrieved.

Matthew Muller dropped his cell phone at the scene of a crime. It's how he was caught.

 

[SteveP]

Oh, but the driver's license is a very different thing.
How often would you drive around without one?
A driver's license, a cellphone, maybe a credit card or a phone-linked pay are necessary. Maybe a gun for some. The chance of leaving these somewhere accidentally is really slim.

Now, the knife sheath is different. I can imagine it being left somewhere and never retrieved.

How does one go about deciding what one is likely to accidentally leave behind? Before leaving a murder scene, does one check to make sure he has his drivers license in his possession, because getting stopped and not being able to produce it at 4:30am would be bad, but feels it not important to make sure he has all of the murder weapon.

Sorry, but I'm not getting whatever point it is this post is trying to make. Btw, I have accidentally left home without my drivers license, without my wallet and credit cards, and I have accidentally left my cellphone at another's home. Don't really believe that the likelihood of doing any of those things is really slim, and that is not even when leaving the scene of 4 brutal murders. I would think the likelihood of skedaddling very quickly would take precedence over checking to make sure you have everything you mean to take with you in an instance like that. JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Oh, but the driver's license is a very different thing.
How often would you drive around without one?
A driver's license, a cellphone, maybe a credit card or a phone-linked pay are necessary. Maybe a gun for some. The chance of leaving these somewhere accidentally is really slim.

Now, the knife sheath is different. I can imagine it being left somewhere and never retrieved.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding here.
I have unknowingly and knowingly driven without my driver’s license. Everything you mention there, except a gun which I don’t carry, I have at one time or another left behind. Pretty much everybody I know has done the same.
Color me confused.