4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #101

[Tragg]

The mountain of motions will not move the needle.

I agree. But I am not surprised to see any of them. Even in cases that don't involve the death penalty, Defense lawyers owe it to their clients to pursue every possible line of defense - including arguments that run counter to existing law - under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct:


RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or
controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and
fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good
faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of
existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal
proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result
in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as
to require that every element of the case be established.

Commentary

[1] The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the
fullest benefit of the client's cause, but also a duty not to abuse
legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive,
establishes the limits within which an advocate may proceed.
However, the law is not always clear and never is static.
Accordingly, in determining the proper scope of advocacy, account
must be taken of the law's ambiguities and potential for change.

[2] The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for
a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been
fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital
evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however,
is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients' cases
and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith
arguments in support of their clients' positions. Such action is not
frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client's position
ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the
lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits
of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith
argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

[3] The lawyer's obligations under this Rule are subordinate to
federal or state constitutional law that entitles a defendant in a
criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim
that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule.

 

[Megnut]

Can’t quote post from previous thread.
@Sor Juana said:

1. We don't even know whose knife was used.
2. If he had a white Bugatti and it was the only one around, then maybe you could call it a coincidence.
3. The late-night drive might seem odd, but in that town, partying and ordering food at 4 am is the norm, isn't it?
4. His cell phone goes dark during the murder window. Have you checked his logs?
5. Sure, criminals often return to the crime scene, we hear. But not that soon. This is more like an anxious guy checking things out.

*My thoughts:
1. It is reasonable to infer/deduce
that the knife used in the slaughter of 4 innocent people is owned by the same person whose 5 octillion DNA is on a portion of the use/pressure point of the sheath found in the bed of one of the victims.

2. Not really the Bugatti would stand out like a sore thumb and have pointed LE BK’s way alot quicker as the owner of the car seen on surveillance doing the loop de loop circling just prior to the killings and speeding away from the scene after. LE would have indentified him a lot faster due to the uniqueness of a car like that driving around a college town. Anyway after checking the cameras, they’d have found him faster checking vehicle registrations in the area of that type of car and likely had him go down to the station with them for an interview. Depending on how that went, BK might have confessed (doubt it), said something to the effect that yes it’s my car but I wasn’t driving it that night/early morning, it was stolen,
I lent it to my friend etc, etc. He may very well would have said I’m not saying anything and invoked his right to talk to an Attorney. In any case, if he didn’t confess, before letting him go, LE likely would have told him and/or his lawyer to not leave town in case they need more info/have more questions.

3. Well by 4am I’m pretty sure for the most part things have quieted down significantly and most are sleeping even in a college town. Anyway that’s not why BK said he was driving around that night/early morning, he said it was to look at the moon and the stars, that it was reported to have been cloudy that night, notwithstanding.

4. The state’s timeline evidence shows that his phone when dark during the murder window starting at 2:47am until when it came back online at 4:48am. Of course none of us have seen the logs, but I expect the Defense will put up an expert witness to try and cast doubt about the prosecution’s timeline and black 2 hour hole of BK’s phone, which they may chalk up to unreliableness of the prosecution’s reports, cell phone towers and triangulation etc, etc. tell you what, if I’m a juror I would want a much better, reasonable explanation from BK/his Defense for the 2 hour blackout of his phone, especially if he had no pattern of shutting his phone down for 2 hours on any of his other late night/early morning drives.

5. Have you never heard of the perp who shows up the night/next day to the scene or close to it to search for the so called missing person that they murdered? As for your last sentence, I agree, this was an anxious guy worried about the dropped and forgotten knife sheath and curious if the cops had been called which imo is why he drove over there later that morning around 9am.

IMHOO

Your second point made me think of something. Looping.

If BK had no prior contact of any sort with any of the victims and had no prior connection to 1122, are we really going to believe that he drove randomly near to 1122, saw something of interest but the timing wasn't right, and drove away, only to loop around? And again and again? Without any cellphone map to guide him?

I'm not seeing it.

IMO from what we know, it looks like he drove intentionally to 1122, then looped away and toward it repeatedly.

That PROVES to my satisfaction that he was aware of 1122 before he even left Pullman. It was his target.

JMO

 

[stemkb]

If BK had no prior contact of any sort with any of the victims and had no prior connection to 1122, are we really going to believe that he drove randomly near to 1122, saw something of interest but the timing wasn't right, and drove away, only to loop around? And again and again? Without any cellphone map to guide him?

To piggyback on that, immediately after the attack, SV1 exited via Walenta/Conestoga Drive without getting lost down one of its many cul-de-sacs. In 2022 there was a single southerly exit, as Sunnyside Ave had not been completed, yet the out-of-state driver knew when to turn south onto Sunnyside Ave and then west along Conestoga Drive to reach Palouse River Drive.

The cameras on which SV1 appear are equally as important as the ones it does not, and the PCA infers this route was taken owing to the lack of SV1 on other cams in the area.

Glance at the neighborhood south of King Road on maps. Most unlikely SV1 threaded the needle like that by accident on first occasion, strengthening the case its owner had done their homework by visiting the area before.

 

[Maat99]

from @NCWatcher, previous thread.

Others have stated the sheath is part of the actual murder weapon. I'm not sure most people in the general public would agree with that belief. A knife that's never been put in a sheath can still be used to kill just like a gun without a holster can be used to shoot someone. And it's pretty unlikely a sheath or a holster would be thought of as a deadly weapon or even though of objects to make ordinary objects into deadly weapons.

I’m not following. No one is saying that a knife sheath is a required element in a murder committed with a knife. No one is saying that the knife sheath itself is an “ordinary object” made into a deadly weapon. How is that even relevant? Knives can be transported in knife sheaths. Finding a knife sheath with dna under the body of a woman murdered by a knife is absolutely damning no matter what existential thoughts you or anyone else has on the meaning of knife sheaths.

 

[Megnut]

To piggyback on that, immediately after the attack, SV1 exited via Walenta/Conestoga Drive without getting lost down one of its many cul-de-sacs. In 2022 there was a single southerly exit, as Sunnyside Ave had not been completed, yet the out-of-state driver knew when to turn south onto Sunnyside Ave and then west along Conestoga Drive to reach Palouse River Drive.

The cameras on which SV1 appear are equally as important as the ones it does not, and the PCA infers this route was taken owing to the lack of SV1 on other cams in the area.

Glance at the neighborhood south of King Road on maps. Most unlikely SV1 threaded the needle like that by accident on first occasion, strengthening the case its owner had done their homework by visiting the area before.

AT can toss salad all day about how there's no stalking, he did go to Moscow, he just wasn't 'over there' but the data points tell a different story.

He knew where he was headed, knew his way well enough to loop around with no map, without getting lost.

And far as we know, after the last time later that morning, he didn't bother with looping back there. Funny that.

Not funny.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

from @NCWatcher, previous thread.

Others have stated the sheath is part of the actual murder weapon. I'm not sure most people in the general public would agree with that belief. A knife that's never been put in a sheath can still be used to kill just like a gun without a holster can be used to shoot someone. And it's pretty unlikely a sheath or a holster would be thought of as a deadly weapon or even though of objects to make ordinary objects into deadly weapons.

I’m not following. No one is saying that a knife sheath is a required element in a murder committed with a knife. No one is saying that the knife sheath itself is an “ordinary object” made into a deadly weapon. How is that even relevant? Knives can be transported in knife sheaths. Finding a knife sheath with dna under the body of a woman murdered by a knife is absolutely damning no matter what existential thoughts you or anyone else has on the meaning of knife sheaths.

If you re-read my entire post vs pulling out a paragraph, you'll see I never said the sheath was unimportant (in that post or in any other.) But I disagreed that a sheath was part of the "murder weapon" and by extension, I disagreed with posts saying BK's DNA was found on the murder weapon. If you've been following the case and reading posts you know several people have argued that the sheath IS part of the murder weapon and his DNA was on that weapon. They have a right to think that, and I have a right to disagree no matter what thoughts you or anyone else has "on the meaning of knife sheaths."
MOO

 

[schooling]

If you re-read my entire post vs pulling out a paragraph, you'll see I never said the sheath was unimportant (in that post or in any other.) But I disagreed that a sheath was part of the "murder weapon" and by extension, I disagreed with posts saying BK's DNA was found on the murder weapon. If you've been following the case and reading posts you know several people have argued that the sheath IS part of the murder weapon and his DNA was on that weapon. They have a right to think that, and I have a right to disagree no matter what thoughts you or anyone else has "on the meaning of knife sheaths."
MOO

I'm one of those people.

If a medical examiner or expert witness testifies that the wounds are more likely than not from a Ka-bar. IMO that erases any reasonable doubt that a sheath found under the body (as reported) of one of the victims is not part of the murder weapon. JMO.

The alternative is....?

Someone is always welcome to come up with a more reasonable alternative explanation. I haven't seen one yet. There have been plenty of unreasonable (JMO) though... most involve a multi-agency, hundred+ people conspiracy. MOO

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I'm one of those people.

If a medical examiner or expert witness testifies that the wounds are more likely than not from a Ka-bar. IMO that erases any reasonable doubt that a sheath found under the body (as reported) of one of the victims is not part of the murder weapon. JMO.

The alternative is....?

Someone is always welcome to come up with a more reasonable alternative explanation. I haven't seen one yet. There have been plenty of unreasonable (JMO) though... most involve a multi-agency, hundred+ people conspiracy. MOO

MOO

agreed.

These are just basics. They will prove it was a kbar that matches the sheath. Witnesses will testify they never saw the sheath in the home before. All the usual evidential plodding to link the murder to the accused via the weapon.

it’s also worth remembering that every individual fact and inference does not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

If they have proof of purchase as well then it’s the cherry on top.

To get past any of this BK would have to testify to explain how on earth his DNA innocently got there IMO. I doubt the defence will try to dispute the sheath is from the murder weapon.

 

[Cool Cats]

agreed.

These are just basics. They will prove it was a kbar that matches the sheath. Witnesses will testify they never saw the sheath in the home before. All the usual evidential plodding to link the murder to the accused via the weapon.

it’s also worth remembering that every individual fact and inference does not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

If they have proof of purchase as well then it’s the cherry on top.

To get past any of this BK would have to testify to explain how on earth his DNA innocently got there IMO. I doubt the defence will try to dispute the sheath is from the murder weapon.

The defense suggested that Kohberger’s DNA could have been planted which means that THE DEFENSE ADMITS THIS IS BK'S DNA.

“The State’s argument asks this Court and Mr. Kohberger to assume that the DNA on the sheath was placed there by Mr. Kohberger, and not someone else during an investigation that spans hundreds of members of law enforcement and apparently at least one lab the State refuses to name.”

Bryan Kohberger’s potential defense revealed amid DNA battle

Genetic genealogy and DNA, which were used to identify Bryan Kohberger, are at the center of the Idaho Four student murders case.

lawandcrime.com

Never has the defense of BK said, in any Motion, that the knife sheath DNA is NOT BK's DNA. Instead, they are doing everything they can to mitigate BK's DNA being found on the knife sheath. Such as, his DNA was "planted" on the sheath during the investigation. This actually confirms that this is in fact, BK's DNA.

2 Cents

 

[Sweeper2000]

Hey guys just seen this but was wondering if anyne could give me a quick rundown on this case, familiar with most of it but not recently. is it still likely kohberger etc cheers

 

[Megnut]

Hey guys just seen this but was wondering if anyne could give me a quick rundown on this case, familiar with most of it but not recently. is it still likely kohberger etc cheers

BK didn't leave room for it to be anyone else.

New venue, new judge. Tight ship, holding to deadlines, firm on trial date.

Defense got a mini hearing to launch a case for an actual Frank's hearing but failed to reach the threshold for one. Judge upheld the search warrants and IMO the fruits therefrom.

Defense has a two-pronged task. The trial itself and then DP at sentencing. Arguments to suppress on the former failed; simultaneously, she's battling against the DP on the grounds of constitutionality and mitigating factors, the newest being the suggestion of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

While the State favors 5 page motions and replies, the Defense is more prolific, 2000 being a favorite number. Judge did grant her some latitude... to 20 pages.

I predict spring flurries. Flurry of motions -- uphill battle for the Defense because of the DNA on the sheath and ... Amazon. BK did some shopping his attorney wanted to magically disappear.

And, any time we see BK at the Defense table, he's dropped a couple vertebrae. By August, he'll look like a fourth grader in a kindergarten lunch room, scootched down in a toddler chair.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

BK didn't leave room for it to be anyone else.

New venue, new judge. Tight ship, holding to deadlines, firm on trial date.

Defense got a mini hearing to launch a case for an actual Frank's hearing but failed to reach the threshold for one. Judge upheld the search warrants and IMO the fruits therefrom.

Defense has a two-pronged task. The trial itself and then DP at sentencing. Arguments to suppress on the former failed; simultaneously, she's battling against the DP on the grounds of constitutionality and mitigating factors, the newest being the suggestion of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

While the State favors 5 page motions and replies, the Defense is more prolific, 2000 being a favorite number. Judge did grant her some latitude... to 20 pages.

I predict spring flurries. Flurry of motions -- uphill battle for the Defense because of the DNA on the sheath and ... Amazon. BK did some shopping his attorney wanted to magically disappear.

And, any time we see BK at the Defense table, he's dropped a couple vertebrae. By August, he'll look like a fourth grader in a kindergarten lunch room, scootched down in a toddler chair.

JMO

i have no idea what msot of that means ie motions,franks hearing constituionality and MF'S but it sounds like they got the guy, seems to have been quite clear from the start really. 2000 being a fav number?

 

[Megnut]

i have no idea what msot of that means ie motions,franks hearing constituionality and MF'S but it sounds like they got the guy, seems to have been quite clear from the start really. 2000 being a fav number?

Defense has filed some ridiculously long motions.

Defense wants DP off the table.

But you're right -- they got the guy.

Judge: the defendant's DNA on the sheath satisfies probable cause "every day and twice on Sunday"

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Defense has filed some ridiculously long motions.

Defense wants DP off the table.

But you're right -- they got the guy.

Judge: the defendant's DNA on the sheath satisfies probable cause "every day and twice on Sunday"

JMO

u reckon they will get DP off the table? it sounds like hes going for NG right? what do you mean by ridiculously long motions as well? not sure what that means. sorry from the UK. following the delphi murders and it seems like this is a clearer case.

ETA
"watching the stars" doesnt even sound plausible.

 

[Megnut]

u reckon they will get DP off the table? it sounds like hes going for NG right? what do you mean by ridiculously long motions as well? not sure what that means. sorry from the UK. following the delphi murders and it seems like this is a clearer case.

ETA
"watching the stars" doesnt even sound plausible.

1000 page motions.

"Watching the stars" isn't even the alibi presented. She brought it up to try to explain away BK's night driving. Which she refers to as early morning.... I think she's setting up for both the 12 trips BK made into Moscow and his travel on the night/morning of the murders. The alibi she is floating is that, yes, he was driving around. In Moscow. But 'not over there'. Probably in an area with little camera coverage. As if BK and his Elantra are driving around sensibly on one side of town and the Elantras over by 1122 aren't his car.

I suspect, at trial, she'll query expert witnesses about the blurriest of Elantra images in the hopes she can elicit a statement that, from that photo/video/image alone, it's not possible to determine make and model.

Immaterial really. Because it'll be the trajectory of images that the jury will evaluate. If Point A and Point C are clear and Point B is fuzzy, it's reasonable to accept Point B, because Points A & C lend it context.

It'll be on cross that she earns her keep, in tackling the evidence, the investigation and investigators, the experts, the witnesses, the table.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

1000 page motions.

"Watching the stars" isn't even the alibi presented. She brought it up to try to explain away BK's night driving. Which she refers to as early morning.... I think she's setting up for both the 12 trips BK made into Moscow and his travel on the night/morning of the murders. The alibi she is floating is that, yes, he was driving around. In Moscow. But 'not over there'. Probably in an area with little camera coverage. As if BK and his Elantra are driving around sensibly on one side of town and the Elantras over by 1122 aren't his car.

I suspect, at trial, she'll query expert witnesses about the blurriest of Elantra images in the hopes she can elicit a statement that, from that photo/video/image alone, it's not possible to determine make and model.

Immaterial really. Because it'll be the trajectory of images that the jury will evaluate. If Point A and Point C are clear and Point B is fuzzy, it's reasonable to accept Point B, because Points A & C lend it context.

It'll be on cross that she earns her keep, in tackling the evidence, the investigation and investigators, the experts, the witnesses, the table.

JMO

im not sure what such a long motion would be trying to achieve? it does sound like shes got her work cut out. genuinely sounds open and shut to me so a long motion would probably just be delaying the inevitable.

 

[Megnut]

im not sure what such a long motion would be trying to achieve? it does sound like shes got her work cut out. genuinely sounds open and shut to me so a long motion would probably just be delaying the inevitable.

Judge had the same reaction. Said, "I ain't reading all of that".

AT puts new meaning into the phrase 'burying the lead', which is understandable because she doesn't have a supportable lead, so she has to shovel it on in the hopes the Judge won't notice.

She had to know it wouldn't work.... which makes me think she wasn't playing to the judge. She was playing to the public...

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Judge had the same reaction. Said, "I ain't reading all of that".

AT puts new meaning into the phrase 'burying the lead', which is understandable because she doesn't have a supportable lead, so she has to shovel it on in the hopes the Judge won't notice.

She had to know it wouldn't work.... which makes me think she wasn't playing to the judge. She was playing to the public...

JMO

so interesting. I really hate this guy such an evil thing to do. Seriously for someone who seemed clued up and well informed about criminal matters he didn't do a very good job of covering his tracks did he? im not well informed on this but I know the basics. is he just out of his mind or something? the knife from amazon, the cars frequent travel, the knife sheaf sounds like he didnt even try to cover his tracks.

DP or no? i think its a go. any ideas on why he targeted those guys?

 

[Megnut]

so interesting. I really hate this guy such an evil thing to do. Seriously for someone who seemed clued up and well informed about criminal matters he didn't do a very good job of covering his tracks did he? im not well informed on this but I know the basics. is he just out of his mind or something? the knife from amazon, the cars frequent travel, the knife sheaf sounds like he didnt even try to cover his tracks.

DP or no? i think its a go. any ideas on why he targeted those guys?

I don't think he planned to wake so many people and was intended to be a singular murder.

... I can picture him standing outside the Mad Greek, then asking a waitress where she lives. Creepy. I can picture him deciding to stake her out, at work, follow her home. Studies her house. Resents any attention she gets. Tells himself he can get any girl he likes.

Hard to overcome leaving DNA at the crime scene. Absent that, I think he thought he could commit his crime, in and out in minutes, and he'd be in the clear.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't think he planned to wake so many people and was intended to be a singular murder.

... I can picture him standing outside the Mad Greek, then asking a waitress where she lives. Creepy. I can picture him deciding to stake her out, at work, follow her home. Studies her house. Resents any attention she gets. Tells himself he can get any girl he likes.

Hard to overcome leaving DNA at the crime scene. Absent that, I think he thought he could commit his crime, in and out in minutes, and he'd be in the clear.

JMO

so messed up. yeh for sumfin like this as well sounds right. latches onto someone, tags them, follows, studies, buys a rambo knife, creeping over houses at night, executes. stuff of nightmares. thanks btw for filling me in.