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

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1911917387420717280

 

[Nila Aella]

Don't think I agree. I once heard a juror say (when explaining her vote to acquit) "the prosecutor seemed mean and I wasn't sure he proved his case." That didn't lead me to have confidence in that jury verdict! The statement suggested to me the perceived demeanor/"meanness" of the prosecutor received more weight than the evidence. I've also heard fellow jurors say pretty outlandish things about the appearance of attorneys on both sides during deliberations. So even warnings from the judge to consider only the evidence aren't effective.

MOO

BBM
Consistent with my experience as a juror (multiple cases and in every case).
JMO

 

[Balthazar]

snipped by me for focus

I disagree with many of AT's arguments and I expect the judge will rule for the prosecution in all significant respects, but nothing she has done is out of bounds in a legal sense. I am glad that when BK is convicted, his death penalty will be upheld on appeal.

In the hearing last week 4/9/25, of the 12 rulings the judge made during the hearing, the judge ruled in favor of the defense on 7 motions and in favor of the prosecution on 5 motions. There are 9 motions we are still waiting on rulings for. Further, the defense won their 3 most significant motions.

IMO, a lot of people got caught up in the judge's behavior towards the defense as opposed to the facts of what actually occurred in that hearing.

All JMO.

 

[Megnut]

And what is AT talking about? Hours and hours of video but the State didn't give her timestamps? Um, yes, they did. By virtue of their case. Have video from 11/13 near 1122? The relevant time is 3 am to 5 am.

Had the State  just provided her with select video to watch, she'd have been screaming about what they didn't give her, arguing that BK's alibi was contained in the missing video. The State provided all of it. She's playing dumb.

She wants to watch every single minute of video, she can. If she wants to use her time efficiently, she should focus on the times that are relevant to the case.

Which, by the way, doesn't include 2:47-2:54 am (except that it shows BK's vehicle leaving his parking lot and shows he is in fact out driving around) because it doesn't offer him an alibi. An alibi at 2:50 doesn't give him an alibi at 4:15, when he needs one.

She knows where to look.

JMO

 

[Warwick7]

In the hearing last week 4/9/25, of the 12 rulings the judge made during the hearing, the judge ruled in favor of the defense on 7 motions and in favor of the prosecution on 5 motions. There are 9 motions we are still waiting on rulings for. Further, the defense won their 3 most significant motions.

IMO, a lot of people got caught up in the judge's behavior towards the defense as opposed to the facts of what actually occurred in that hearing.

All JMO.

And why?
M00 it was shocking.
It was shocking to hear. And it was shocking it happened to AT.

 

[Warwick7]

And what is AT talking about? Hours and hours of video but the State didn't give her timestamps? Um, yes, they did. By virtue of their case. Have video from 11/13 near 1122? The relevant time is 3 am to 5 am.

Had the State  just provided her with select video to watch, she'd have been screaming about what they didn't give her, arguing that BK's alibi was contained in the missing video. The State provided all of it. She's playing dumb.

She wants to watch every single minute of video, she can. If she wants to use her time efficiently, she should focus on the times that are relevant to the case.

Which, by the way, doesn't include 2:47-2:54 am (except that it shows BK's vehicle leaving his parking lot and shows he is in fact out driving around) because it doesn't offer him an alibi. An alibi at 2:50 doesn't give him an alibi at 4:15, when he needs one.

She knows where to look.

JMO

BAM!!!

 

[LetsSolvIt]

Yes I can see that as a potential as well, I noticed BK appeared to be writing something down a couple times at last week’s hearing.
A very good point @Sundog.

IMHOO

It looked to me like he was using a thick writing instrument like a child’s Crayola marker (they come boxed in a set of basic colors for school children). Furthering alleged evidence of his fine motor challenges? And promoting a diminished persona/capacity?

I would guess most adults would prefer a Bic pen or lead pencil for note taking. He often seemed to be checking things off like he had a list. Only two or three times did he seem to be actually writing.

IMHOO.

 

[Gemmie]

It looked to me like he was using a thick writing instrument like a child’s Crayola marker (they come boxed in a set of basic colors for school children). Furthering alleged evidence of his fine motor challenges? And promoting a diminished persona/capacity?

I missed it so can only make a guess as to why what BK used to jot down a few notes looked like crayons or markers. Perhaps they didn't want to give him something with a sharp point that he could stab someone with? As I said... just a guess on my part.

 

[detectivewannab]

I think the testimony of his sister is going to be interesting.

 

[Ghostwheel]

RSBM

AT: I know we discussed a sizable amount of recent discovery we had gotten, those issues prior to this Court taking over. We had talked about the way discovery was being received um early on in the case. We filed discovery request after discovery request in addition to talking about the mismatched way discovery was received. That has been put on the record. My hope was with the States discovery deadline, with that cut off date, that we'd be able to pull it together. My hope has been that until these new things have happened to shift us off the course we were on.

Getting more people to review the discovery doesn't cure the problem the D has encountered with the discovery being produced piecemeal and deadlines not being met.

RSBM

I have a question (Real question). Where is it written/proven that the state did not meet the deadlines? If the state gets the information piecemeal, they can only pass it on piecemeal. And it is not their obligation to organize it for the defense, especially if they need to pass it on by some deadline. State gets a pile of papers, copies them and sends them to Defense. Then state organizes their pile of papers. They didn't organize before they sent them, because speed. I keep hearing the State say they gave Defense the information as requested or do not have that information when Defense says they didn't get A, B or C.

Is there a document that proves the state missed deadlines when they actually had information? Or might they have missed a deadline because they, too, were waiting for information so did not have it and maybe filed a response to whatever accusation? If anyone knows where to find this, please point me in the right direction. TIA.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

I think the testimony of his sister is going to be interesting.

I so agree with you on this.

I have searched all my bookmarked articles, of course some no longer exist, which no doubt is the specific one I've looked for. It was an early article, when BK was arrested. MK and MK (dad and sis) were in the kitchen and LE told them what the arrest pertained to. And the sister let out some sort of disgusted exclamation, as if she'd heard enough about BK already.
Anybody ever read this? I'll have to say IMOO. And if she is writing a book I'm going to preorder!

 

[MeadowMuffin]

I have a question (Real question). Where is it written/proven that the state did not meet the deadlines? If the state gets the information piecemeal, they can only pass it on piecemeal. And it is not their obligation to organize it for the defense, especially if they need to pass it on by some deadline. State gets a pile of papers, copies them and sends them to Defense. Then state organizes their pile of papers. They didn't organize before they sent them, because speed. I keep hearing the State say they gave Defense the information as requested or do not have that information when Defense says they didn't get A, B or C.

Is there a document that proves the state missed deadlines when they actually had information? Or might they have missed a deadline because they, too, were waiting for information so did not have it and maybe filed a response to whatever accusation? If anyone knows where to find this, please point me in the right direction. TIA.

The only things I remember is they kept asking for the AT&T records, which don't exist, and video of a certain intersection which also doesn't exist. This "video" is actually a traffic cam that is in real time only, it doesn't make an actual record, so there was nothing to produce.

And absolutely I agree with you that it isn't up to the State to provide them with spoon-fed information as that is not how they themselves receive it. AT wanted it quick, she got it quick.

 

[Ghostwheel]

Don't think I agree. I once heard a juror say (when explaining her vote to acquit) "the prosecutor seemed mean and I wasn't sure he proved his case." That didn't lead me to have confidence in that jury verdict! The statement suggested to me the perceived demeanor/"meanness" of the prosecutor received more weight than the evidence. I've also heard fellow jurors say pretty outlandish things about the appearance of attorneys on both sides during deliberations. So even warnings from the judge to consider only the evidence aren't effective.

MOO

People are people. Warnings to consider only the evidence aren't effective, but then neither would be warnings to NOT consider a defendants actions in the courtroom for whatever reason, IMO.

As an example, if there were a defendant with Tourette's that happened to manifest itself with outbursts of profanity, a jurist could not fail to notice it even if no one mentioned the condition. If the condition was mentioned imo, some might be more sympathetic, but some would not and might actually go the other way. (if they can't control that, what else can't they control?) Also IMO, you'd be hard pressed to find a jury of 12 people with Tourette's or with a loved one with Tourette's( peers) who could really understand. The rest of the world does the best they can given the situation, and while people like to believe they can ignore non evidence in a courtroom they don't even realize that they don't.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Straight from the CDC website, seems particularly relevant given AT's apparently unsupported claim that BK should have been diagnosed with ASD as a child.

"Children were classified as having ASD if they ever received 1) an ASD diagnostic statement in a comprehensive developmental evaluation, 2) autism special education eligibility, or 3) an ASD International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code in the 299 range or International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code of F84.0, F84.3, F84.5, F84.8, or F84.9. Children aged 4 years were classified as having suspected ASD if they did not meet the case definition for ASD but had an evaluator’s suspicion of ASD documented in a comprehensive developmental evaluation.

<<snipped>>

Overall, 66.5% of children aged 8 years with ASD had a documented autism test. Use of autism tests varied widely across sites: 24.7% (New Jersey) to 93.5% (Puerto Rico) of children aged 8 years with ASD had a documented autism test in their records. The most common tests documented for children aged 8 years were the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Autism Spectrum Rating Scales, Childhood Autism Rating Scale, Gilliam Autism Rating Scale, and Social Responsiveness Scale.

Prevalence and Early Identification of Autism Spectrum ...

This report describes autism spectrum disorder prevalence and early identifications patterns among children aged 4 and 8 years old.

www.cdc.gov

 

[StarryStarryNight]

In the hearing last week 4/9/25, of the 12 rulings the judge made during the hearing, the judge ruled in favor of the defense on 7 motions and in favor of the prosecution on 5 motions. There are 9 motions we are still waiting on rulings for. Further, the defense won their 3 most significant motions.

IMO, a lot of people got caught up in the judge's behavior towards the defense as opposed to the facts of what actually occurred in that hearing.

All JMO.

I don’t think anything of consequence went the defense’s way.
Frankly I thought the judge threw some inconsequential “wins” to the defense because he felt sorry for them. The significant wins don’t look very significant to me considering everything the prosecution has in their bag.
Trials are not like ballgames where you keep score. The defense is still miles behind in my opinion.

 

[SteveP]

In the hearing last week 4/9/25, of the 12 rulings the judge made during the hearing, the judge ruled in favor of the defense on 7 motions and in favor of the prosecution on 5 motions. There are 9 motions we are still waiting on rulings for. Further, the defense won their 3 most significant motions.

IMO, a lot of people got caught up in the judge's behavior towards the defense as opposed to the facts of what actually occurred in that hearing.

All JMO.

Could you share what you feel the three most significant wins were for the defense? I listened to pretty much the entire hearing, and did not come away with a feeling that the defense had any substantial wins, and certainly no game changers. It largely felt, to me, like a day the defense could have better spent, looking at discovery they claim they have not had time to go through. JMO

 

[Megnut]

Could you share what you feel the three most significant wins were for the defense? I listened to pretty much the entire hearing, and did not come away with a feeling that the defense had any substantial wins, and certainly no gamechangers. It largely felt, to me, like a day the defense could have better spent, looking at discovery they are so far behind on. JMO

The biggest win IMHO was the judge helping them articulate an actual argument relative to the speeding/seat belt video. He had to school them. The Defdnse doesn't get to te

ll the State how to present their case. Just because something might be prejudicial doesn't make it overly prejudicial. It might just be good evidence. Relevant. He proposed redacting it, to remove portions of dialogue. Gift to the Defense IMO.

JMO

 

[Sachi]

The biggest win IMHO was the judge helping them articulate an actual argument relative to the speeding/seat belt video. He had to school them. The Defdnse doesn't get to te

ll the State how to present their case. Just because something might be prejudicial doesn't make it overly prejudicial. It might just be good evidence. Relevant. He proposed redacting it, to remove portions of dialogue. Gift to the Defense IMO.

JMO

Speculating... the redacted part would likely show his personality .. BK a bit as defiant or possibly oppositional/argumentative? MOO

 

[SteveP]

Speculating... the redacted part would likely show his personality .. BK a bit as defiant or possibly oppositional/argumentative? MOO

Even with redaction of the dialogue where BK questions why LE needs his phone number, and why he should have to wear a seat belt which he apparently feels is not really a safety feature, the jury will still see BK, in his white Elantra, that looks just like the car in all of the video, and in his car at night, and in Moscow. Defense cannot be too happy about that, even with some redaction. JMO

 

[Balthazar]

I don’t think anything of consequence went the defense’s way.
Frankly I thought the judge threw some inconsequential “wins” to the defense because he felt sorry for them. The significant wins don’t look very significant to me considering everything the prosecution has in their bag.
Trials are not like ballgames where you keep score. The defense is still miles behind in my opinion.

The defense got their 3 most consequential high value wins:
Alternate Suspect Evidence
Alibi
AT&T Timing Advance Reports AND the opportunity to talk to Ballance.

The prosecution only got 1 of their own motions ruled in favor by the judge: Improper DP Comments - a very low value ruling.

The other rulings that went the prosecutions way were also low value:
Unnoticed 404b evidence
Amazon Click Activity
Make and Model of Vehicle

The rulings especially the more consequential rulings thus far are mostly in favor of the defense and on much more valuable issues. The more consequential rulings are important in shaping the trial and being able to determine how things will go in front of the jury. By evaluating the outcome of these hearings, we can learn a lot about the forthcoming trial. In fact, this is an important part of the science and art of trial consulting.