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

[iamshadow21]

Or putting up and taking down a shower curtain. JMO.

Injecting smack.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

You know what doesn't take particularly fine motor dexterity?

A knife fight.

With a big knife and unarmed foes.

 

[Sachi]

Or putting up and taking down a shower curtain. JMO.

Or typing on a computer,
or gripping sponges brushes and rags for cleaning/scrubbing
more difficult to do tasks with gloves.
Vacuuming car with possibly maneuvering a hose and nozzle,
squeezing spray bottle, maybe repetitively.
using a fork, knife or spoon,
using a can opener
buttoning shirts

 

[Sachi]

You know what doesn't take particularly fine motor dexterity?

A knife fight.

With a big knife and unarmed foes.

Bam!

 

[LinasK]

It's interesting but most people who represent themselves do fine, they aren't entirely on their own they typically have legal aide's as ordered by the Judge. It's when it is a crazy person like Lori or Charles Manson or that black man who killed his family and was screaming in court represent themselves that they do horribly and we hear about it.

One of my holy grails of trial footage is the 1985 Mafia Commission Trial, just in general because i'm interested in the Mafia but also because Carmine Persico (Colombo Boss) represented himself and he was supposedly hilariously ridiculous and was pissing off the other Bosses who felt he was making them look bad lol.

Not legal aides, actually lawyers are in the courtroom on stand-by to advise defendants who choose to represent themselves.

 

[LinasK]

Yep, but they actually don't do that badly. They do far better in criminal cases than civil cases for some reason: "Pro se litigants may have a lower chance of success. The Louisiana Court of Appeals tracks the results of pro se appeals against represented appeals. In 2000, 7% of writs in civil appeals submitted to the court pro se were granted, compared to 46% of writs submitted by counsel. In criminal cases the ratio is closer – 34% of pro se writs were granted, compared with 45% of writs submitted by counsel.<a href="Pro se legal representation in the United States - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>33<span>]</span></a> According to Erica J. Hashimoto, then an assistant professor at the University of Georgia School of Law:"

I think this heavily goes against that saying and the general portrayal:

After conducting an empirical study of pro se felony defendants, I conclude that these defendants are not necessarily either ill-served by the decision to represent themselves or mentally ill. ... In state court, pro se defendants charged with felonies fared as well as, and arguably significantly better than, their represented counterparts ... of the 234 pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50 percent of them were convicted on any charge. ... for represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75 percent were convicted of some charge. ... Only 26 percent of the pro se defendants ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies ... in federal court ... the acquittal rate for pro se defendants is virtually identical to the acquittal rate for represented defendants.<a href="Pro se legal representation in the United States - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>34<span>]</span></a>

Pro se legal representation in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe it was different in the 19th Century. I'd also point out that no Lawyer on Earth was getting Lori Daybell or Charles Manson off, the famous cases are typically lost causes anyway.

OJ managed to find lawyers to get him off, and he was clearly guilty.

 

[LetsSolvIt]

Sorry if this is old information but I had never heard some of this about BK’s alleged SM — might explain some of D’s motions related to potential testimony referring to him as “psycho.” SM discussion starts around 21:15. Then more SM discussion at 32:08. Pretty stunning. OMO.

Documentary [excellent synopsis] released on April 10, 2025, from News Nation folks, “Crime Nation.”

 

[Sundog]

Idk, hypothetically - if a quadruple murder suspect was staring for a prolonged period of time at a juror, it’s likely they would listen 1st to their inner voice.

<snipped for focus>

But the state and the court is arguing that jurors are instructed to listen only to the evidence, not a defendant's courtroom demeanor. AT is arguing that jurors may not focus only on the evidence, but on BK's demeanor which would not be appropriate.

 

[Swansee]

Is there any explanation about the rather large group of people who were seated behind the defense team during the last hearing?
I believe the guy sitting directly behind AT was her investigator, but no idea about that crowd of youngish looking people further back. Law school students maybe?

 

[NCWatcher]

<snipped for focus>

But the state and the court is arguing that jurors are instructed to listen only to the evidence, not a defendant's courtroom demeanor. AT is arguing that jurors may not focus only on the evidence, but on BK's demeanor which would not be appropriate.

Yes, that seems to be exactly what's happening. But realistically we all know (as does the state) that jurors are affected by the defendant's courtroom appearance and demeanor. That's why, for example, a defendant can't be forced to appear before jurors in prison garb during the trial.

One can argue that because jurors are supposed to attend only to the evidence, no correction for possible attendance to other factors is appropriate no matter what we know is often true. And that seems to be a main argument here. But a change of venue is a correction too-- it attempts to correct for the jury's exposure to pre-trial information even though jurors are not supposed to take that information into account when rendering their decision. Rather they are supposed to base their decision on only courtroom evidence. And potential jurors are often asked to promise they'll do that during voir dire. But we know they may not do that no matter how sincere they are in their promises.

Jurors are also not supposed to read about or watch news programs about the trial as it is occurring. Many times, for trials lasting multiple days, the judge questions the jury each day about any exposure to trial information outside of the courtroom since the previous day. And when jurors are sequestered in a hotel during the trial, nobody depends on jurors promising not to do those things. Instead, controls are put in place. Jurors are not permitted to have access to newspapers in the hotel and in their rooms, their television programming is set to block news coverage. They cannot use cell phones, at least not in private. So we do know that active controls can be used to "force" the jurors to avoid encountering information that is not evidence in court.

I am not arguing AT's apparent solution should be adopted in this case. But to argue against it because jurors are instructed to ignore a defendant's demeanor seems silly to me.
MOO

 

[mrjitty]

"AT&T uses a system known as Network Event Location System (NELOS) to estimate the location of mobile devices within their network. NELOS is a form of Timing Advance and AT&T is transitioning to a TDOA system of PCMD similar to T-Mobiles system."

A Cops Guide To Cellular Network Investigations | Warrant Builder

Learn key topics for investigating cellular networks like how mobile phones use networks, important identifiers, and locating phones using cell towers.

warrantbuilder.com

You are claiming the TAR data is available for 7 years rather than 7 days based on public info. Where does it say that?

 

[girlhasnoname]

<snipped for focus>

But the state and the court is arguing that jurors are instructed to listen only to the evidence, not a defendant's courtroom demeanor. AT is arguing that jurors may not focus only on the evidence, but on BK's demeanor which would not be appropriate.

True, but even with an instruction by the Court, these jurors are human beings and they will have a reaction to BK's courtroom behavior regardless.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

We already know how he's going to rule. He's going to allow the defense to question Ballance out of view of the jury, and that's going to be the end of it. Sy Ray and the defense absolutely embarrassed themselves here, and I wish the judge hadn't been so measured.

It's also unfortunately a great example of how lawtube jumps all over a filing which ends up being trashed by the Judge. Sigh.

 

[ilovewings]

<snipped for focus>

But the state and the court is arguing that jurors are instructed to listen only to the evidence, not a defendant's courtroom demeanor. AT is arguing that jurors may not focus only on the evidence, but on BK's demeanor which would not be appropriate.

There is no way a juror cannot notice the demeanor of a defendant: that is absurd. Of course jurors pay attention to the evidence but they also take note of a defendant's demeanor-- it is only natural to do so: you cannot squelch that.

 

[Megnut]

We already know how he's going to rule. He's going to allow the defense to question Ballance out of view of the jury, and that's going to be the end of it. Sy Ray and the defense absolutely embarrassed themselves here, and I wish the judge hadn't been so measured.

Will she do it?

You are so right -- they embarrassed themselves.

Seriously underestimated the judge.

Will she question Ballance? She knows he doesn't have what she's asking for.

Will she bring Sy Ray to trial?

So far, she's tried to confuse the judge, and it didn't go so well for her. We know she'll try to confuse the jury -- because frankly, it's all she got.

But I'm curious how far she'll actually take this, as an officer of the court. Stern warnings from the judge. Spank.

JMO

 

[Sachi]

<snipped for focus>

But the state and the court is arguing that jurors are instructed to listen only to the evidence, not a defendant's courtroom demeanor. AT is arguing that jurors may not focus only on the evidence, but on BK's demeanor which would not be appropriate.

Ah ha yes. Thank you - lightbulb moment!

 

[Balthazar]

Can NELOS estimate the location of a phone that has been turned off? Nope, because the phone has to be transmitting signals to towers in order to be tracked. The state claims to know for certain and apparently can prove that BK's phone was physically turned off on Nov 13, 2022, from 2:47am until 4:48am. Perhaps NELOS told them that as well as location of phone at time when turnd off, and location of phone when again turned on.. JMO

It is not possible for cellphone companies to tell if a phone is turned off or if the battery is dead or if the phone is out of range of cell towers. So, I don't believe that the State knows if or can prove that BK turned his phone off. NELOS is strictly information from cell towers about cell phone connectivity. That information will not tell LE anything to definitively prove the state of BK's phone. What we have here is a lack of evidence, unfortunately. JMO.

 

[SteveP]

It is not possible for cellphone companies to tell if a phone is turned off or if the battery is dead or if the phone is out of range of cell towers. So, I don't believe that the State knows if or can prove that BK turned his phone off. NELOS is strictly information from cell towers about cell phone connectivity. That information will not tell LE anything to definitively prove the state of BK's phone. What we have here is a lack of evidence, unfortunately. JMO.

Perhaps what you and I have is lack of evidence, but the state expressed that they know for certain that the phone was "turned off." You have made posts that insist that AT&T was able to give the state information that the state, and a sworn statement from AT&T, says they were not. You now are positing that AT&T cannot provide information that the state says that they have with certainty. If true, perhaps the state got the info through other means. I do find it telling that when the prosecutor stated that the state knows for a fact that the phone was turned off, Judge Hippler did not ask if he had evidence of that.

ETA: As others, @Megnut and @mrjitty point out, the state HAS his phone, so I am certain that it has been forensically examined , and likely gave a wealth of information. We've already found a nice selfie there.

I guess we will all find out who knows what at trial. JMO

 

[Megnut]

I imagine the State has his phone.

They'll know if his phone was in landscape or portrait when he turned it off.

Hello, CAST report.

Goodbye, Sy.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Perhaps what you and I have is lack of evidence, but the state expressed that they know for certain that the phone was "turned off". I find it a bit amusing that you have made posts that insist that AT&T was able to give the state information that the state, and a sworn statement from AT&T, says they were not, and yet you now are positing that AT&T cannot provide information that the state says that they have with certainty. I do find it perhaps telling that when the prosecutor stated that the state knows for a fact that the phone was turned off, Judge Hippler did not ask if he had evidence of that.

I guess we will all find out who knows what at trial. JMO

This! They know it was turned off because they extracted the phone. IMO.