4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #104

[Megnut]

I'm up to the 911 call.

That was a GROSS misrepresentation by AT.

Minimizing the excitable event.

It was a series of related, excitable events.

AT acts like DM was all about business as usual, texting, visiting nefarious apps, etc. She was trying to find digital signs of life of her too quiet roommates!!!!

They were freshly excited as tension mounted in the morning.

Jmo

 

[NoeticSoul]

"Whatever happened in that house"

Is there anyone besides AT who refers to the slaughter of four defenseless victims as "whatever happened"?

I know right!? "Whatever happened in that house" (REALLY AT!!!!!!!!???)

ATs devoid of empathy to even acknowledge "what happened" in that house. When she fully knows or she'd not be defending BK at all.

Its disgusting. JUST SAY IT!!!!

 

[Megnut]

I know right!? "Whatever happened in that house" (REALLY AT!!!!!!!!???)

ATs devoid of empathy to even acknowledge "what happened" in that house. When she fully knows or she'd not be defending BK at all.

Its disgusting. JUST SAY IT!!!!

Doll house, no less.

 

[NoeticSoul]

I ALMOST dislike TA more than Jose Baez. JS moo

 

[DizzyB]

He looked drugged today?

Practicing the flat affect.

 

[NoeticSoul]

Practicing the flat affect.

With AT's blathering about about nothing, BK has has allot of practice that's for sure!!

 

[Tillyjames]

Was it ever stated he had Autism previously when we learned about him? I remember seeing articles about his behaviors, getting bullied, weird antics but I don’t remember ever seeing an autism diagnosis prior?

 

[NoeticSoul]

I didnt see this before

Bryan Kohberger adds new lawyer ahead of murder trial: Who is Bicka Barlow?

Bicka Barlow, an expert on DNA forensics who testified as an expert witness for Bryan Kohberger during an August 2023 hearing, joins his defense team. Here's what to know ahead of the trial.

www.fox9.com

 

[NoeticSoul]

Was it ever stated he had Autism previously when we learned about him? I remember seeing articles about his behaviors, getting bullied, weird antics but I don’t remember ever seeing an autism diagnosis prior?

Nope.

 

[Chloegirl]

Watching parts I missed earlier.

AT asking to limit the State's witness from saying it's Vehicle 1 at various points along their proposed route. Because it's only identifiable in one image .... so even though the vehicle in the other images is consistent-- both in appearance and timing -- she doesn't want the witness to claim its the same one.

AT is arguing with the judge over the years of the Elantra and HE reminds HER that the witness expanded the year range. She says they only changed the years  after BK was identified, but the judge answered her, "that's not true." She continues, saying again that the expanded years came after BK was identified.

Judge: I don't think that's consistent with the facts.

Judge says it's in the province of the witness TO testify if he believes it's the same vehicle in all the images.

She is floundering.

Painful to watch.

JMO

I picture her taking the role his mother had to, protective female. She will realize she's doing all the emotional labor in that relationship. I think today you can see she's growing a little weary, fighting for him. JMOO

 

[Ghostwheel]

Been watching today’s hearing. Any of you have thoughts?

From what I understand autism or “being on the spectrum” is a personality / mental health disorder, as are psychopath and sociopath.

If defense has an official diagnosis for BK’s autism and they can use it to his advantage and possibly restrict state’s use of the term, why can’t prosecution have an evaluation to know if BK is also a psychopath or sociopath, and if he is, use that to their advantage? Why did defense bring that up for a ruling? I guess we would know by now if the state was going to get a psychological evaluation by an “expert” on BK. MOO.

Also, related to BK’s family testifying early so they can then be in the courtroom, what if later after they have been sitting there and listening for days or weeks the state needs to recall one of them for some reason? Having them in courtroom and having them testifying first (out of order) certainly seems like a disadvantage for prosecution. MOO.

Autism is a lifetime thing. However, depending on where one is on the spectrum they can mitigate their behaviors. Can't tie Shoe laces? Get shoes without laces. Don't understand social queues? Learn what the proper reaction is supposed to be in a given situation. Can't sit still? Become that guy (or gal) who paces when talking. Your diagnosis at 5 will be different than it is at 20 for most people who are on the higher functioning side of the Autism scale. There is a number associated with your severity in various test results, and since most children get some help to learn compensation techniques, the number is often in the less severe range as you get older. For learning disorders they want an evaluation from no more than 10 years prior simply because people do learn compensation techniques. For those I knew with Autism specifically, it was similar.

What BK's situation was at 5 has no bearing on where he falls on the spectrum now, even if he did have an evaluation. IMOO, based on life experience with what is euphemistically called "Special Needs" children and the really stupid way (also IMO) that they group the kids into that category.

 

[Warwick7]

Was it ever stated he had Autism previously when we learned about him? I remember seeing articles about his behaviors, getting bullied, weird antics but I don’t remember ever seeing an autism diagnosis prior?

And neither did Joshua Hurwit. And thats why he went for the throat and demanded data behind two elledged expert mental health evaluations of Kohberger.

He requested additional materials, including test results and the facts supporting the experts’ conclusions, to allow their own experts time to review and prepare a rebuttal. The supplemental discovery request specifically refers to evaluations by forensic psychiatrist Dr. Eileen Ryan and neuropsychologist Rachel Orr.

He demanded it, because it doesn't exist.

 

[NoeticSoul]

I picture her taking the role his mother had to, protective female. She will realize she's doing all the emotional labor in that relationship. I think today you can see she's growing a little weary, fighting for him. JMOO

Defending a deliberate mute "dummy" (won't speak and wont contribute to his own defense must be exasperating) his mama by proffer..... must be exhausting when you KNOW he's guilty and there is nothing you can really do to save him from death as a verdict..

MOO

 

[wendy44]

I can't decide if Sy Ray did AT dirty and had her convinced the prosecution actually had those Timing Advance Records through another way or if she understood the 7 day thing and just hoped it would go her way.

It's clear her goal was to ask Ballance about the "missing records" and make the jury have doubts about his testimony. At least the judge seems on to that since he's allowing her to ask the question, but not in front of the jury. She doesn't really care about the answer so much as she wants the jury to hear her ask the question. If there was any proof of Sy Ray's claims, today would have been the day to produce it.
JMO

 

[wendy44]

Addressing the MIL regarding the alibi, starting at about 5:10:16

BT--"The defendant acknowledges that their cell phone expert, Mr. Ray, can't account for the time of the homicides itself. Of course, we know that because his phone was turned off. So the only person who can testify to an alibi if there is an alibi is the defendant himself."

About 5:14:25

Judge--"What about their expert, their cell phone expert, as I understand it will testify as to where he was or wasn't?"

BT--"I don't believe that's what his expert can say. The best their expert can say is that before the defendant's phone was turned off, the defendant's phone was south and potentially west of Pullman. But that was significant time or notable time before the homicides themselves occurred in Moscow. There's nothing in the cell phone data that shows where the defendant was at the time of the homicides."

So back in April 2024 when the defense said this in their response to the state's alibi demand:

Additional information as to Mr. Kohberger’s whereabouts as the early morning hours progressed, including additional analysis by Mr. Ray will be provided once the State provides discovery requested and now subject to an upcoming Motion to Compel . If not disclosed, Mr. Ray’s testimony will also reveal that critical exculpatory evidence, further corroborating Mr. Kohberger’s alibi, was either not preserved or has been withheld.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/2024/041724-Notice-Defendants-Supplemental-Response-States-AD.pdf

it was always about these Timing Advance Records they said had to exist. Even though his phone was turned off. It seems like it was just Sy Ray saying he thought they had the records because they had the records from the victims, the persons of interest and the tower dump.
JMO

 

[wendy44]

The prosecution's portion of MIL regarding the alibi starts at about 5:10:16--

AJ--"This should be fairly simple. The state is seeking an order prohibiting the defense from continuing to allege that the state received Timing Advance Records from AT&T from Mr. Kohberger's phone."

Judge--"When you say continuing to allege, I'm assuming you mean in front of the jury."

AJ--"Yes, we don't want, throughout the entirety of this case they've alleged that. We're seeking to prohibit them from making that same allegation in front of a jury. Because it's false. Timing Advance Records, really timing is at issue. And in 2022, really the days that we're concerned about are 7 days. The event that we wanted records for was obviously November 13th. So, in 2022 we had 7 days from November 13th to get AT&T Timing Advance Records for anyone's phone. We did do search warrants for other people's phones. We did a tower dump and we did a search warrant for 3 individuals. Those were all done on November 16th within that 7 day period, so the state did receive some Timing Advance Records. However, by the time Mr. Kohberger was identified, in December, December 19th, and by the time we applied for a search warrant, for his AT&T records, we were outside of that 7 day window, so there were no Timing Advance Records to be received and we did not receive any. The state has submitted an affidavit from Stephen Gordon, the ATT&T Director of Compliance, essentially stating that. That we sought Timing Advance Records but they were not included because more than 7 days elapsed since November 13th 2022 and the date of the search warrant December 23rd 2022. And the state just submits these affidavits should be dispositive of this issue."

Judge--"Defense filed a document yesterday and I don't have all the attachments, but it talks about a Timing Advance that was produced by AT&T last April I think."

AJ--"Yes. So for that, it's still in reference to the search warrants that were initially asked for in November, November 16th of 2022. We did a Part 1 and then later we did a Part 2. But because we put in that request within the first 3 days, obviously a preservation request was also put in. So those records were obtained."

Judge--"You're indicating that there were records obtained as part of your prior notification of need for AT&T to preserve those records."

AJ--"Right."

 

[Warwick7]

Interesting tidbit from the judge. I don’t think he was talking hypothetically when he mentioned Kohberger purchasing the knife using an Amazon gift card, he had purchased with a credit card.

This here is stupid is as stupid does 101.

With all the data footprints today, how did he think THIS was a good idea?

 

[Swansee]

Sy Ray put his entire reputation and career on the line with his claims regarding the Timing Advance data. It's hard to believe he would make such a massive claim without any proof. And yet it now seems that's exactly what he did.
I wish he had been allowed to testify, even briefly, at yesterday's hearing, so the judge/parties could ask him directly what evidence he actually has for the claims of wrongdoing he made in his sworn affidavit.

 

[wendy44]

Next up, starting around 5:25:30, AT is up:

AT--"Your Honor, we're requesting the court deny the state's motion and allow us to cross-examine their expert Nicholas Ballance with regard to Timing Advance Records (TARs)."

Judge--"What evidence do you have that TARs existed, that the state cold have acquired for Mr. Kohberger?"

AT--"Well, Your Honor, specifically--"

Judge--"I read your affidavit of Mr. Ray and he seems to entirely ignore the 7 day issue. And doesn't address it."

AT--"Your Honor, his affidavit I think starts before to explain to the court some of the history about where the TARs come from. When Mr. Kohberger was identified, I'm going to jump ahead and tell you why I think I should get to ask Nick Ballance about these records. When Mr. Kohberger came to the attention of the state and they began doing search warrants for Mr. Kohberger's records on December 23rd, there were two separate search warrants for Mr. Kohberger's AT&T records and they requested TARs. And one of the pages that we gave you was the carrier request that said give us 7 days worth of TARs. There were 7 days back, at least 7 days back at that time. Those have never been produced to us. What I've learned in working with Mr. Ray is that obtaining TARs now goes through a different process than it went before. FBI agents had a way, a means, to get these TARs before they were generally available to all of law enforcement. Generally available now comes through the GLDC program and that happened in 2023."

Judge--"But he's not indicated he has any evidence that at least for the time of the murder that those would still be in existence."

AT--"We've never heard from Nick Ballance, who is FBI, and who has the back door--"

Judge--"You heard from AT&T."

AT--"You've heard from AT&T that GLDC did not produce those, these records in 2022. You've absolutely heard that from AT&T. What you haven't heard is the other way that--"

Judge--"What's the other way? I haven't heard that either. I've heard a general description and I've heard in the affidavit that he received some once and they said oh no, don't use those. I don't know if those were acquired within the 7 days. He doesn't address the 7 days. And that's a glaring, particularly given the inflammatory language in that accusations in that affidavit, it's a glaring omission.

AT--"...Your Honor, we don't even have the 7 days worth, which is what the carrier request says."

Judge--"The 7 days that he's back home?"

AT--"...Maybe."

Judge--"I'll ask the state about those, if they received those. I'm not sure their search warrants covered that time frame but--"

AT--"Your Honor, I would say that it did. And I would say their first search warrant was just a 48 hour period, it asked for TARs, but then the second warrant--"

Judge--"But you would agree there's no evidence that AT&T provided those or those were still available by the time the, Mr. Kohberger was identified."

AT--"...Your Honor, I--"

Judge--"As an officer of the court."

AT--"As an officer of the court I would like to ask Nick Ballance that and here's why. [Judge starts shaking his head] Here's why. The things that I've learned is that the 7 days is on paper. Sometimes they go back further than other days."

Judge--"What's the evidence of that, counsel?"

AT--"One evidence has been in the practice that I've learned from people that worked--"

Judge--"You're, you're giving me that testimony now?"

AT--"I'm not giving you testimony, I'm answering the court's question."

Judge--"Okay. But you've made some serious accusations against the state of hiding evidence. And yet you've provided no factual basis. Zero. That that evidence existed. For them to be able to obtain it. In December."

AT--"Your Honor, in April of, I'm sorry, it was probably by the July date that I got it, of 2024. I got records from 2022. And some other time in 2024, I think it was May, I got 3800 people's TARs."

Judge--"That would be because they were asked within the 7 days of the date they sought it. It was the tower dump from the night of the murder, asked within the 7 days."

AT--"...I understand that."

Judge--"Okay. So where's the evidence that Mr. Kohberger's TARs from AT&T were available to anybody in December? Without a prior request that they save those?"

AT--"Well, I don't know if they made a prior request that they save those."

Judge--"Well, they wouldn't, because they didn't know who he was."

AT--"You're correct, they didn't know who he was until I think about December 19th."

Judge--"Right."

AT--"Their warrant for his full scope of records, the second AT&T warrant, asked for all of the records. I haven't seen any of them. That's, even if they were just the 7 days back. I haven't seen any of them."

Judge--"What you're talking about now is a discovery issue of the 7 days that don't sound like they're particularly relevant to the murder. That's a discovery issue you can take up with the court through a motion to compel, which you have not filed. It's not an evidentiary issue in which you can lay down Mr. Ray's conspiracy theory without any evidence. At trial.

AT--"Your Honor, we have litigated this issue quite extensively throughout the course of the case. The TARs, once I understood how timing advance works, became very important. We've heard different things now than I've heard at different times in the past about this, particularly about the 7 days. That's newer information to me now. But the carrier request forms tell me I should at least have that. I want the court to know that we have had motions to compel on this very issue. We have had different bits of information--"

Judge--"But the 7 days that are after December or in December?"

AT--"No, Your Honor. Because the 7 days is something that's newer and has been brought to my attention recently--"

Judge--"--motion to compel related to TARs for November 13th."

AT--"Our discovery requests were for all of Mr. Kohberger's TARs. Our motions to compel covered all of them too. I have this carrier request now that says 7 days and I have the affidavit now that says 7 days. Those are not things that I always knew when we were litigating this issue."

Judge--"Okay."

AT--"Those are new bits of information. To me, it is a little bit problematic that there's been things that have changed and there might be records out there. Given what you have now with the affidavit with 7 days, if you imagine you didn't know that and you--"

Judge--"I understand your confusion and concern previously. What I don't understand is now. In light of the evidence, I don't understand Mr. Ray's accusations without addressing the 7 days, that he had that information when he submitted his affidavit."

AT--"He's available to testify if the court wishes for him to."

Judge--"It's his obligation and your obligation to establish that evidence of, that the state has this. And you haven't done that. His affidavit is quite extensive and he seem to ignore that issue."

AT--"Your Honor, I believe that issue is touched on with his knowledge that these kinds of records existed a long time before."

Judge--"He said that in a very general way, about that without reference to the 7 days and he supposedly received them from some FBI expert to look at for his company, and then was told not to use them. So I don't know, maybe the FBI got them in a way that they weren't supposed to at that time for all I know. He didn't name names, he didn't identify, he didn't put it into any context. The state had indicated and they provided AT&T's sworn testimony that they only keep them for 7 days. And yet he makes the accusations that he did in his affidavit without addressing that 7 day issue at all. And so I guess my point is, if you want to cross-examine the witnesses about why didn't they rely on the AT&T timing information you gotta show some factual foundation that that was available to them. By the time Mr. Kohberger was on their radar. As it relates to November 13. And I'm not seeing that is the problem.

AT--"My first question to special agent Ballance who would be the person who would've gotten these through a different channel for the FBI, would've been, did you get them? Because we heard different things along the case. Asking him the question is what I really wanted to be able to do. And that's why I oppose this motion and prepared it as I did."

Judge--"Tell you what, I'll let you ask that question outside the presence of the jury."

AT--"Thank you."

Judge--"At the time of trial."

AT--"That will satisfy me. Thank you."

 

[wendy44]

Back to AJ about 5:35:40, but first the judge has a few words:

Judge--"And I'm not upset, but I, just for Mr. Ray's information, because he wasn't here the first day I started this trial with you folks. I said I don't want theatrics, I don't want accusations that aren't supported with evidence, about supposed bad conduct of the parties. You're all professionals, I respect you all, and the accusations he made in there are very concerning. The kinds of accusations if true would get people disbarred. And so without any evidence, and apparently sidestepping the clear explanation, he makes those, and so that doesn't make me happy."

AJ--"And to address the court's concerns of what's been raised, I think the only issue out there--I have the two search warrants. The state asked for the AT&T TARs in our search warrants. The state wanted that information for Mr. Kohberger. We did not receive it. I did not receive those records from AT&T. I do not have them. Thank you, Your Honor."

Judge--"There's not been a showing that those records were available and I think it would be unfairly prejudicial to try to impeach the testimony of the agent that somehow he hid or didn't provide or didn't use records that he didn't have available to him. So absent some factual showing that he had them available, I'm not going to allow questions about that and I'm not going to allow testimony about that. Now, if you want to voir dire him before he testifies in front of the jury I'll allow that. And if you show a factual finding and a factual basis for it, I'll allow it, but you haven't. At this point."

AT--"I appreciate the opportunity to ask the question outside the presence of the jury. Thank you."