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

[c@tw0man]

I can’t watch today… thanks to those of you who will be and are sharing the updates!

I can't either. I have avoided this trial like the plague, until yesterday. Yesterday, I tried to watch the defense team belaboring all their motions to suppress evidence, and please excuse him because suddenly he is autistic, poor baby. I finally turned the channel, because the urge to grab my television and stomp it to tiny bits was just too strong. God bless the judge and the prosecutors, I couldn't deal with this defense team. After the Judge tells them no, they still go on and on and on and on... Milking the taxpayers for bags of money.
Obviously, BK is the mastermind here, and they are his starstruck minions. The whole pointless dog and pony show enrages me. One irrational motion after another is abuse of the legal system, and it's running rampant. There should be a limit to how much time wasting and ridiculous muck that defense teams can throw at the court. It's despicable. Makes me glad I did not choose law as a career :/

 

[Sachi]

He might have ALL the disorders. Jurors might even begin to feel sorry for him, if AT has her way, but there's nothing in his particular soup of disorders to divorce him from his own actions which show he knew right from wrong, he prepared for his crime and cleaned up after it.

Personality disorders do not protect one from the DP, they're not even mental illnesses they're just disordered personality types.

But I'm not even sure AT has met the threshold for her experts or her claims so we haven't seen the final draft for what ultimately the jury will even hear.

The judge did take some matters under advisement yesterday, could the Defense the extreme favor IMO of doing their jobs for them, for example highlighting the actual parts of the traffic stop video that might be peejuducial to the defendant. Asking the judge to throw out virtually every aspect of the State's case was never going to fly, but now the judge is left to protect the defendant from the Defense. Ugh.

Jmo

Hi Megnut

Megnut and anyone who watched the hearing - Can we talk about this

Snipped from Megnut-

“Asking the judge to throw out virtually every aspect of the State's case was never going to fly, but now the judge is left to protect the defendant from the Defense. Ugh.”

In what way(s) and how will the judge do this , do you think ?

I didn’t listen to the hearing and appreciate - info - clarity- opinions and takes on the exchange between Hippler and AT/defense team

 

[arielilane]

Steve and Kristi Goncalves, parents of University of Idaho student homicide victim Kaylee Goncalves, arrive at the Ada County Courthouse for a Wednesday hearing in the capital murder case of Bryan Kohberger. Sarah A. Miller [email protected]

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article303697551.html#storylink=cpy



Anne Taylor, defendant Bryan Kohberger’s lead attorney, arrives at the Ada County Courthouse on Wednesday for a hearing in her client’s capital murder case. Taylor, along with her public defense team, argued over dozens of motions during the all-day hearing, including two requests to strike the death penalty. Sarah A. Miller [email protected]

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article303697551.html#storylink=cpy



Idaho Deputy Attorneys General Jeff Nye, right, and Madison Allen, are assigned to the prosecution team in Bryan Kohberger’s student murder trial. Prosecutors argued Wednesday against the defense’s request to omit police body-cam footage of Kohberger receiving a ticket for failing to wear a seat belt several months before the November 2022 homicides in Moscow. Sarah A. Miller [email protected]

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article303697551.html#storylink=cpy




Latah County Senior Deputy Prosecutor Ashley Jennings, left, and Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, arrive at the Ada County Courthouse for a hearing in the capital murder case of Bryan Kohberger. The prosecution, led by Thompson, argued over a litany of motions regarding key evidence at an all-day Wednesday hearing. Sarah A. Miller [email protected]

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article303697551.html#storylink=cpy

April 10, 2025

 

[Nadal]

I can't either. I have avoided this trial like the plague, until yesterday. Yesterday, I tried to watch the defense team belaboring all their motions to suppress evidence, and please excuse him because suddenly he is autistic, poor baby. I finally turned the channel, because the urge to grab my television and stomp it to tiny bits was just too strong. God bless the judge and the prosecutors, I couldn't deal with this defense team. After the Judge tells them no, they still go on and on and on and on... Milking the taxpayers for bags of money.
Obviously, BK is the mastermind here, and they are his starstruck minions. The whole pointless dog and pony show enrages me. One irrational motion after another is abuse of the legal system, and it's running rampant. There should be a limit to how much time wasting and ridiculous muck that defense teams can throw at the court. It's despicable. Makes me glad I did not choose law as a career :/

No there absolutely shouldn't, defence lawyers should not only be able to but they should put up as rigorous of a defence as possible always. If the evidence is strong enough it will not matter.

This is such a disturbing view that is always based on a few slam dunk cases where the accused is obviously guilty, any rules of those kinds would also apply to far shakier cases and cases of innocent people being accused of crimes. I want Prosecutors to have to conclusively prove their case through any tactics because it's so strong especially in murder cases where we are talking life imprisonment or possibly the death penalty, i don't understand why that's a controversial opinion.

 

[Megnut]

Crediting @Boxer for the observation that BK wasn't in a suit but was in collegiate wear for the hearing.

Witness re-branding.

Suit = professional, strong-shouldered

He'll be in Garanimals for trial. Maybe a little bib in case he drools and his head lolls to the side.

AT needs him to look small, weird, unathletic, uncoordinated, incapable of thought and action.

Shameless.

Don't even get me started on the gross, misguided, backwards stereotyping. Commence with outrage over what she's doing.

The judge is looping in my head, "is that before his doctoral program?

How low will she go?

JMO

 

[Sachi]

I think we haven't heard the last of this. Iiuc the State is asking for discovery from the Defense as to their experts' evaluation. Methods, findings, etc.

I think AT used her experts very carefully and very narrowly, in order to get a generic finding to re-diagnose BK with ASD (as a child) without opening the door to a full mental health evaluation because a condition like anti-social personality disorder doesn't stave the DP. Neither does ASD but, since she's attempting to lump together all individuals with ASD (despite the breadth and variety of presentations) in the hopes of appealing to... her word... the judge's humanity. Completely glossing over that fact that BK is not presently an 8 year old who can't tie his shoelaces. BK is an adult, was living independently, apparently capable of shower curtain commerce, driving, working, amassing degrees (in the State's response -- BK achieved his Master's with a 4.0). BK shows degrees of competency in planning, preparation, navigation as attested by the investigation.

She revealed her strategy, either get the judge to create law that ASD, on every level, escapes the DP, against all law to date (he has no cognitive impairment!!!) or, as revealed late in the day after her motions smackdown, force a delay. She asked the JUDGE to point her to evidence in discovery, asked the judge also to make the State mark key discovery for her. That is not how delegation works!!

She's really got less than nothing to work with.

Good luck trying to rebrand BK as a sympathetic character.

JMO

Thank you!

 

[Sachi]

Crediting @Boxer for the observation that BK want in a suit but was in collegiate wear for the hearing.

Witness re-branding.

Suit = professional, strong-shouldered

He'll be in Garanimals for trial. Maybe a little bib in case he drools and his head lolls to the side.

AT needs him to look small, weird, unathletic, uncoordinated, incapable of thought and action.

Shameless.

Don't even get me started on the gross, misguided, backwards stereotyping. Commence with outrage over what she's doing.

The judge is looping in my head, "is that before his doctoral program?

How low will she go?

JMO

Can you have a podcast? I would listen lol

 

[Megnut]

No there absolutely shouldn't, defence lawyers should not only be able to but they should put up as rigorous of a defence as possible always. If the evidence is strong enough it will not matter.

This is such a disturbing view that is always based on a few slam dunk cases where the accused is obviously guilty, any rules of those kinds would also apply to far shakier cases and cases of innocent people being accused of crimes. I want Prosecutors to have to conclusively prove their case through any tactics because it's so strong especially in murder cases where we are talking life imprisonment or possibly the death penalty, I don't understand why that's a controversial opinion.

Rbbm

The rigorous part isn't the controversial part. The justice system demands it, and I think there's strong consensus across WS threads for it. It's behavior that is unbecoming of officers of the court which raises ire. Purposefully misrepresenting facts is not truth-seeking. Alleging misconduct -- or submitting an expert's affidavit alleging the same -- is serious and the judge was stern. AT countered by feigning ignorance, as if she just learned things (the seven-day detail) but we've known it here for quite a while, and it's her job to know the facts before allowing/endorsing unsupported allegations. IMO Hippler wasn't holding up a yellow flag, it was a red flag. And it was on fire.

If AT truly had just learned of the seven-day detail, why didn't she seek to quash her own (expert's) affidavit? Why didn't she LEAD with her newly attained knowledge? IMO she had every intention of overtalking it, deferring to Sy Ray who she'd say could explain it better, hoping to get him to testify at the hearing, and he would over-overtalk it, never expecting the judge to be ten steps ahead of them. Absolute smackdown.

That's what controversial IMO. Counsel crossing the line.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Hi Megnut

Megnut and anyone who watched the hearing - Can we talk about this

Snipped from Megnut-

“Asking the judge to throw out virtually every aspect of the State's case was never going to fly, but now the judge is left to protect the defendant from the Defense. Ugh.”

In what way(s) and how will the judge do this , do you think ?

I didn’t listen to the hearing and appreciate - info - clarity- opinions and takes on the exchange between Hippler and AT/defense team

It's at least two-fold.

First, she actually asked the judge to show her where to look, if he knew it. (Then asked the judge to order the State to show her where to look, across virtually all of discovery.)

Second, regarding just the traffic stop -- the Defense wants it thrown out, for all the reasons, worried about the myriad inferences jurors can draw. But what they didn't do was tailor a pointed argument, and these are allegedly professional lawyers. It was the judge who, after schooling them, handed them the legitimate argument and remedy -- namely, redacting portions to reduce the actual overly prejudicial footage of BK being argumentative. As to the video itself, it's relevant. Neither the judge nor the Defense gets to tell the State how to present its case (within the rule of law) and this is how the State plans to introduce the vehicle, cellphone, and person. There's a difference between prejudicial and overly prejudicial for a reason.

The Defense doesn't like it because it's incriminating. The judge himself made that point. It's good evidence, it's effective  evidence.

The Defense was basically arguing, "please make them introduce the vehicle (oh, and without calling it Vehicle 1 in all the images) in another way, one that doesn't look so bad for the defendant."

It is not the State's job to present BK in the best light.

Only the truth.

JMO

 

[Justice101]

@Angenette5


Interesting - #BryanKohberger's lawyer, Elissa Massoth, says despite the State saying it may call his family members as witnesses, his family has no interest in helping the State and the only reason they don't attend the pretrial hearings in-person is b/c they don't have the money to do so



12:05 PM · Apr 9, 2025




@PhilipCDube


The state has to pay for the transportation and accommodation expenses of any witness.


12:32 PM · Apr 9, 2025

Dumb question: Can a witness refuse to testify (if they are not the defendant)?

 

[Justice101]

Crediting @Boxer for the observation that BK wasn't in a suit but was in collegiate wear for the hearing.

Witness re-branding.

Suit = professional, strong-shouldered

He'll be in Garanimals for trial. Maybe a little bib in case he drools and his head lolls to the side.

AT needs him to look small, weird, unathletic, uncoordinated, incapable of thought and action.

Shameless.

Don't even get me started on the gross, misguided, backwards stereotyping. Commence with outrage over what she's doing.

The judge is looping in my head, "is that before his doctoral program?

How low will she go?

JMO

HAHAHA!

 

[Ghostwheel]

I am not sure everyone considers "evaluation" to be a synonym for "test." To me, saying X should be evaluated for Y is not the same thing as saying X should be tested for Y. Perhaps it means the same thing to you.

Regardless, I don't know what the defense has or doesn't have. Nor do I know what they are trying to to prove re: ASD. None of us really know. We may have opinions but opinions aren't facts.

My point in posting was not to make any claim about what the defense may or may not have. My point was, just as the CDC and @BeginnerSleuther have said, there is no "test for autism" regardless of what a company may call the assessment device it sells. But multiple posters keep saying BK should have been "tested for autism."
MOO

Semantics then. Tested, evaluated, assessed are all synonyms. It's a process of having certain criteria to weigh against to determine if someone has ASD. Whatever one calls it, you can't get a diagnoses without it. A teacher can't just say "That student is rocking, they have ASD". It's a formal process to get an official diagnosis. And that part isn't an opinion. In my experience, it was a testing of behaviors given certain situations. Someone else can call it evaluation or assessment. But in school a test is an assessment or evaluation of what you have learned. It's easy to see how someone would use it in such a way. IMO.

ETA: The Autism Spectrum Disorder Specialist in my son's case (and the three other cases I helped others with) called it a test, which is why I call it a test. I just realized I never mentioned that.

 

[INfisherman]

He'll be in Garanimals for trial. Maybe a little bib in case he drools and his head lolls to the side.

RSBM

Go get ‘em, tiger!

 

[SteveP]

Dumb question: Can a witness refuse to testify (if they are not the defendant)?

If a witness is subpoenaed, and refuses to testify, they can be held in contempt of court, resulting in fines, jail time, or both. And BK's family can be compelled to testify. Were BK married, his spouse could not be compelled to, due to spousal privilege, but parent/child privilege is limited to certain instances, and only when the child is a minor. No privilege exists for other family members, including siblings. JMO

 

[10ofRods]

How are we certain that they didn't run all DNA (partial and complete) through at least Codis? I would assume they did.

They're not going to make an announcement about it, nor is it relevant if the other contributors have already volunteered to provide DNA (and are friends of people in the house). KG's boyfriend for example, has been cleared and likely gave DNA (and probably a lie detector test) and is therefore not a person of interest. Other boyfriends probably cooperated as well. Police and crime scene investigators already have their DNA on file to be ruled out.

The DNA on part of the weapon is highly significant, especially in context. I am guessing that the other males have phone data that also places them away from the crime scene (esp Murphy's other parent).

 

[Arkay]

It's at least two-fold.

First, she actually asked the judge to show her where to look, if he knew it. (Then asked the judge to order the State to show her where to look, across virtually all of discovery.)

Second, regarding just the traffic stop -- the Defense wants it thrown out, for all the reasons, worried about the myriad inferences jurors can draw. But what they didn't do was tailor a pointed argument, and these are allegedly professional lawyers. It was the judge who, after schooling them, handed them the legitimate argument and remedy -- namely, redacting portions to reduce the actual overly prejudicial footage of BK being argumentative. As to the video itself, it's relevant. Neither the judge nor the Defense gets to tell the State how to present its case (within the rule of law) and this is how the State plans to introduce the vehicle, cellphone, and person. There's a difference between prejudicial and overly prejudicial for a reason.

The Defense doesn't like it because it's incriminating. The judge himself made that point. It's good evidence, it's effective  evidence.

The Defense was basically arguing, "please make them introduce the vehicle (oh, and without calling it Vehicle 1 in all the images) in another way, one that doesn't look so bad for the defendant."

It is not the State's job to present BK in the best light.

Only the truth.

JMO

I’m feeling pretty sorry for the state of Idaho, if this shabby and amateur defense is being formulated by one of the alleged best DP lawyers in the state.

If you’re from Idaho, please forgive me, but it certainly appears this way to me.

“Shabby” is me being polite. Here in NYC we might call it “schlocky.” That’s Yiddish for low quality junk.

JMO

 

[Miss Poovy]

Good question. Personally I don't think we know that yet but I expect we will have an answer from the judge before too long. While it's not clear (to me) what AT has, I think she has more from the psychiatrist and the neuropsychologist in the area of a autism spectrum dx or autistic symptoms for BK than the state does in the area of a psychopathy or sociopathy dx for him (especially since we can be pretty sure the state has not done an evaluation of BK AND neither of those those specific diagnoses are in the DSM and haven't been since 1980, long before BK was born.)
MOO

Sociopathy & psychopathy are not psychiatry diagnoses. A sociopath or psychopath diagnosis would be anti-social personality disorder.

 

[Megnut]

I’m feeling pretty sorry for the state of Idaho, if this shabby and amateur defense is being formulated by one of the alleged best DP lawyers in the state.

If you’re from Idaho, please forgive me, but it certainly appears this way to me.

“Shabby” is me being polite. Here in NYC we might call it “schlocky.” That’s Yiddish for low quality junk.

JMO

The affidavit IMO was deliberate -- a deliberate ploy to bolster the defense but provide a buffer so AT herself wasn't making the (unsupported) allegations and I think that played out in court. The judge called it out and AT was quick to remove herself from the seven-day detail, distancing herself from the document.

Buried under all of it, there's no data for BK's phone between roughly 3am and 5am because it was off, except for the incriminating fact that it was off precisely during the crime window, prior and post to which he was awake, driving around in his Elantra.

Worth the watch -- to see what AT does now. Will she cut Sy Ray loose, will the judge cut Sy Ray loose for her, will Sy Ray cut himself loose, or will AT double down and at what cost?

Judge warned them. He's not into theatrics.

Court of law. He expects professionalism.

Demands it.

It shows.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

Sociopathy & psychopathy are not psychiatry diagnoses. A sociopath or psychopath diagnosis would be anti-social personality disorder.

Yes, I know. But the post I responded to used the words psychopathy and sociopathy. Those were also used in the court hearing, I believe.
MOO

 

[SteveP]

I have a few questions about the defendant's family. I know that the state has said that they intend to call some of BK's family members, to testify in the upcoming trial, in which case, their travel expenses, lodging, etc, will be paid by the state. I am assuming that once they have testified and been released, the payout ceases shortly after? Surely the state would not be on the hook for paying expenses for family to sit and watch a three-month trial.? Also, does merely being on a potential witness list qualify a person for a paid cross-country trip, or does the state have to make a final determination of who will be called before trial?