4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #108

[girlhasnoname]

Let's say an agent of the State (say, a LEO who knows a LEO told his wife who told two friends who told two friends) is responsible for the leak, and the judge finds the State tangentially responsible, I don't see where he's going to remedy that by moving the trial date. More time doesn't diffuse broad public interest and it does great new opportunities for leaks. New books, new episodes, endless podcasts.

I should think the proper remedy, in the extreme, would be to strike those experts, if that's fun where the leaks came.

Ad to the rest of her tired motion, he's hard it all already. There is no evidence the State has withheld anything, she has more discovery than she can digest, says her, and unless need going to grant her infinity and beyond no amount of time would yield what she claims she is due. A long trail through the Kohberger catacombs to find a diagnosis she can exploit (while simultaneously avoiding a real evaluation of the Currentberger).

I can't believe she is willing to sign her name to a motion that says she needs more time because there might be something in Nefertiti's tomb to excuse BK from the DP and that she first needs to find that double helix amulet before she can determine which experts to call. Her circular logic defies.... logic.

Bottom line:

Dateline isn't overly prejudicial if jurors have never seen it.

Because AT has found no defense for BK in two generations does not give her license to unbury four.

The judge has remedies, and continuance needn't be one of them.

I look forward to Judge Hippler's footnotes most of all, to see what he really thinks of AT's delay tactics.

I have lots of free time tomorrow so... if he could....

JMO

<snipped from your post for focus & BBM>

I look forward to Judge Hippler's footnotes most of all, to see what he really thinks of AT's delay tactics.

Hey you, get off my footnotes, everybody knows I have the footnote fetish.

Some of the best one liners and info. come in those. The Delphi Defense Franks will always be the gold standard of stupidity of footnotes.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Didn't do your homework?
Call AT attorney at law!

 

[snooptroop88]

Going back 3 generations is required by law should there be a mitigation phase. In a DP case, the defense has no choice but to do this regardless of innocence or guilt.

Weirdly, I've got no problem with this three generation thing in a DP situation. But I wasn't aware this was something a competent defense would do in any DP situation. Thanks to your comment, just searched it, and greatly appreciate you noting it.

However, with that said, I find it ironic that the same D that has so vigorously been fighting the use of BK's DNA by the P will now be relying on DNA/medical records going back three generations in an effort to spare his life-- in theory, a life that is in jeopardy only because his own DNA has helped prove him guilty of his crimes.

Doesn't it only seem logical that the same DNA-- left at a crime scene-- should be available as a tool to the P in proving his guilt? It evidently does seem logical, which is why it's being permitted. So AT should have had no issue with it. Again, though, you cannot blame her for trying, jmo.

 

[Balthazar]

It does not seem “required” by a simple google search- “encouraged” though.

Further, its does not remove personal responsibility and culpability? Does it?

What types of mined ancestral data could change his sentencing?

You can’t blame the social history of your ancestors to explain premeditated and brutally butchering 4 strangers. Can you? And if so why? And how?

A detailed life history investigation is required by the ABA of the defense in any DP case. All these things AT has been doing ARE required in a DP case. Otherwise, if she does not do these things, BK cannot appeal later. She must set up his case so that every possible avenue for appeal has been documented for the future. That is the simplest and most straight forward answer put in layman’s terms.

At this point, IMO, Hippler has 2 choices: 1. Remove the DP in order to hold the trial on schedule. 2. Push the date far out into the future in order to continue as a DP case.

However, there is also the incredibly significant problem of the leak which may have destroyed this case as a DP case depending on everything that was leaked and who leaked it. Evidence may be thrown out which may completely neuter the case. It may be that key witness testimony will have to be completely eliminated. I cannot stress enough how serious the leak is and how much damage may have been done to this case.

JMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I know NO ONE who has been following this case, and I have definitely been looking. After two years of lurking here, it’s great to finally join the conversation.

Welcome

 

[Balthazar]

This document explains the defense teams requirements in regards to defending BK.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

This is Hippler’s first DP case and, far from the slam dunk many try to claim, it is highly complex and now this leaker has added a whole new dimension of complexity to the situation.

 

[al66pine]

Didn't do your homework?
Call AT attorney at law!

@Boxer ^ bbm^

Since 2022 ---
The State has been doing its homework and turning it in.
Does AT need more time because the dog ate her homework?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I believe this might already be in the works:

<snipped>

During Thursday’s public court hearing, which began a half-hour after its scheduled start time, Hippler referenced a closed-door session held earlier that day. Looking toward Kohberger’s defense team, Hippler told attorneys he would be “open to a request for an appointment of a special prosecutor. From there, that person could ask a magistrate judge grant subpoena power for the ability to question witnesses under oath, and to grant immunity.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article306492291.html

Interesting development @girlhasnoname ….. reading that and some recent motions filed in this case, IMO I am also beginning to wonder if maybe this will eventually get to a point where defense counsel asks to withdraw or be released from the case? And cringe at what further delays might be sought. But hope none are granted by the court or judge IMO. IANAL. MOO

 

[Megnut]

If AT knows she should do a longitudinal, cross-generational study, what has she been waiting for? Why didn't she jumpstart that on Day 1? Starting with a full dual-diagnostic evaluation of BK, which seems like the critical starting point.

She seems to have drawn up a puzzler. Putting the Court on notice that she hasn't time to complete a comprehensive study when it appears she has no intention of presenting BK for study, a strategy she has adopted but is laying on the judge.

SHE is the reason she isn't launching that study -- because IMO the results of it have the potential to be damning for BK at trial and not helpful for mitigation at the penalty phase.

ASDL1 was a long shot, especially with a high IQ, high functioning, doctoral candidate, because it's already not a protected class, double hurdle. But, even if BK owns every personality disorder there is, it won't save him from the death penalty.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Is there a precedence for a court break between guilt and penalty phases?

If Hippler were to find cause for a continuance, could he push just the penalty phase ahead or would he have to push the trial ahead with it?

Is AT forcing his hand? Basically hanging this comprehensive study over his head, as if (with the current schedule) she can't complete it in time, setting BK up perfectly for appeal. He can't be happy about that.

She had already been told to work faster, add staff, manage time. She chose to accept a second DP case but wants to make the time crunch the Court's fault...

Nervy.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Interesting development @girlhasnoname ….. reading that and some recent motions filed in this case, IMO I am also beginning to wonder if maybe this will eventually get to a point where defense counsel asks to withdraw or be released from the case? And cringe at what further delays might be sought. But hope none are granted by the court or judge IMO. IANAL. MOO

That is a frightening thought.

I wonder under what conditions she'd be allowed to. Personal reasons, like a medical issue or family emergency, I suppose. Time mismanagement? I don't think so. Too hard to do two DP cases at once? She picked that.

I think Judge Hippler has been two steps ahead of her. Reminding her to stay on task, manage her time, increase her staff.

If she chooses not to heed him, that is not grounds for ineffective counsel. That's ineffective strategy.

JMO

 

[Arkay]

As my copy and paste skills are lacking, I’ve screenshot the concluding paragraph of AT’s Motion to Continue. I have questions!

AT claims to have worked “around the clock actively” and has done everything just so. Despite repeatedly saying she hasn’t had enough time, that she does not want assistance because she prefers to scrutinize everything herself, and notwithstanding having simultaneously taken on another DP case.

What strikes me is her claim that “the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial outweighs modest delay.”

MODEST DELAY?????? As a layperson I cannot begin to imagine how “modest” this “modest” delay can possibly be, when AT describes the alleged necessary “life histories” of generations of family, some likely dead by now, PLUS experts in all arenas of life to study all this in an attempt to ameliorate Bryan’s guilt.

Which again, as has astutely been mentioned, if she claims he was never in that house, was star-gazing, and didn’t kill anyone, then BIG WHY as to the necessity of unearthing generations of family and the expertise of all sorts of professionals to prove that Bryan just couldn’t help himself.

IMO

 

[Odeto BJ]

Weirdly, I've got no problem with this three generation thing in a DP situation. But I wasn't aware this was something a competent defense would do in any DP situation. Thanks to your comment, just searched it, and greatly appreciate you noting it.

However, with that said, I find it ironic that the same D that has so vigorously been fighting the use of BK's DNA by the P will now be relying on DNA/medical records going back three generations in an effort to spare his life-- in theory, a life that is in jeopardy only because his own DNA has helped prove him guilty of his crimes.

Doesn't it only seem logical that the same DNA-- left at a crime scene-- should be available as a tool to the P in proving his guilt? It evidently does seem logical, which is why it's being permitted. So AT should have had no issue with it. Again, though, you cannot blame her for trying, jmo.

A demonstration of the difference between logical and logistical.
Logic would say, if the P cannot use IGG to weed out a list like owners of a white Elantra, due to privacy issues, then the D mining records for MH or similar topics in the defendant's ancestry has to be considered to be at least as invasive. Should a single person three generations back be shown to have the qualifying characteristics to make BK predisposed to a specific behavior, does it not apply marginally to every (living) person with the same genetic background? Is that not erosive to the right to privacy of those individuals?
The ABA apparently considers this de rigeur.
So if AT had been successful in prior motion re: Search warrants consequence of the "tip", and the case proceeded without that evidence, would the court end up in the position of permitting the D's ancestry study having DQ'd the IGG and the Fruit? WOW.

Appears that the D had to bring, and lose, the IGG motion in order to fulfill the ABA requirement. A logistical move?
The law moves in mysterious ways....
JMO throughout.

 

[SteveP]

A detailed life history investigation is required by the ABA of the defense in any DP case. All these things AT has been doing ARE required in a DP case. Otherwise, if she does not do these things, BK cannot appeal later. She must set up his case so that every possible avenue for appeal has been documented for the future. That is the simplest and most straight forward answer put in layman’s terms.

At this point, IMO, Hippler has 2 choices: 1. Remove the DP in order to hold the trial on schedule. 2. Push the date far out into the future in order to continue as a DP case.

However, there is also the incredibly significant problem of the leak which may have destroyed this case as a DP case depending on everything that was leaked and who leaked it. Evidence may be thrown out which may completely neuter the case. It may be that key witness testimony will have to be completely eliminated. I cannot stress enough how serious the leak is and how much damage may have been done to this case.

JMO.

AT has known since June, 2023, that the state was going to seek the death penalty in this case. The news wasn't just dropped on her last week. She has had 2 years to do whatever mitigation investigation that she needed to do. I see no reason to push the trial date far out into the future, just so that at that time, she can again argue that she did not have time to do something.

I think the slight possibility may exist that Judge Hippler decides to remove the death penalty in this case., in order to keep it on schedule, but If he does, AT should count that as her big win, because that is the closest thing the defense may ever see to one. JMO

 

[pseudo_hum]

A demonstration of the difference between logical and logistical.
Logic would say, if the P cannot use IGG to weed out a list like owners of a white Elantra, due to privacy issues, then the D mining records for MH or similar topics in the defendant's ancestry has to be considered to be at least as invasive. Should a single person three generations back be shown to have the qualifying characteristics to make BK predisposed to a specific behavior, does it not apply marginally to every (living) person with the same genetic background? Is that not erosive to the right to privacy of those individuals?
The ABA apparently considers this de rigeur.
So if AT had been successful in prior motion re: Search warrants consequence of the "tip", and the case proceeded without that evidence, would the court end up in the position of permitting the D's ancestry study having DQ'd the IGG and the Fruit? WOW.

Appears that the D had to bring, and lose, the IGG motion in order to fulfill the ABA requirement. A logistical move?
The law moves in mysterious ways....
JMO throughout.

IMO, all his family should be incarcerated to prevent any future outbreaks.

 

[Megnut]

As my copy and paste skills are lacking, I’ve screenshot the concluding paragraph of AT’s Motion to Continue. I have questions!

AT claims to have worked “around the clock actively” and has done everything just so. Despite repeatedly saying she hasn’t had enough time, that she does not want assistance because she prefers to scrutinize everything herself, and notwithstanding having simultaneously taken on another DP case.

What strikes me is her claim that “the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial outweighs modest delay.”

MODEST DELAY?????? As a layperson I cannot begin to imagine how “modest” this “modest” delay can possibly be, when AT describes the alleged necessary “life histories” of generations of family, some likely dead by now, PLUS experts in all arenas of life to study all this in an attempt to ameliorate Bryan’s guilt.

Which again, as has astutely been mentioned, if she claims he was never in that house, was star-gazing, and didn’t kill anyone, then BIG WHY as to the necessity of unearthing generations of family and the expertise of all sorts of professionals to prove that Bryan just couldn’t help himself.

IMO


View attachment 588090

Where her motion falls flattest IMO is the lack of specificity. If she had an actual scheduling conflict -- can't get the expert she needs within a certain time period or has butted up against a backlog of something, and had a good faith showing that a delay of 4 weeks, 4 months, 4 years would serve justice and advance BK's defense, it would at least give the Judge something to weigh.

She wants a "modest" but infinite delay, to explore the galaxy, and what -- wait for today's potential jurors to grow old while we wait for a new round of jurors to be born? Why not ask for another change of venue, to the Amazon rainforest? Why? Because she knows that, until it's admitted as evidence at trial, which is where jury selection is key.

You don't wait until there's no publicity to try a case; you try it, with deference to publicity, seeking jurors who haven't been exposed to it. They exist. In Idaho.

JMO

 

[Balthazar]

AT has known since June, 2023, that the state was going to seek the death penalty in this case. The news wasn't just dropped on her last week. She has had 2 years to do whatever mitigation investigation that she needed to do. I see no reason to push the trial date far out into the future, just so that at that time, she can again argue that she did not have time to do something.

I think the possibility may exist that Judge Hippler decides to remove the death penalty in this case., in order to keep it on schedule, and If he does, AT should count that as a win, because that is the closest thing the defense may ever see to one. JMO

The Dateline leak requires an investigation and that investigation will take time and therefore cannot happen before the scheduled trial date but must happen before the trial because the leaker(s) must be identified and all that they leaked must be stricken from the case and the leaker or leakers must be removed as witnesses.

In addition, the Patterson book poses another potential problem. Due out on July 3, 2025, it’s promotional blurb on Amazon says it contains “information from interviews with over 300 people” and further that the authors “KNOW” what local police FBI did right and wrong in this case. IMO, the judge is going to have to do something about this book. If the book gets out and it turns out to contain new leaks then that’s a whole other investigation that must be done prior to trial with possible other evidence and witnesses that must be eliminated from BK’s trial.

What a nightmarish situation for the judge, but a judge with integrity knows what has to happen, IMO.

IMO, DP removed due to Dateline leak.

IF the Patterson book cannot be stopped: case pushed out further to determine if the book contains new leaks and, if it does, launch a new investigation into those leaks to catch the leakers and possibly throw out more evidence and more witnesses.

All it would take is one leak too many to completely gut the case. I don’t know what the leaks are or how many leakers were involved or who they are, but, this case could wind up being so completely altered due to the leaks, that it may have to be thrown out in the end. So, IMO, that is THE worst case scenario.

JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

A detailed life history investigation is required by the ABA of the defense in any DP case. All these things AT has been doing ARE required in a DP case. Otherwise, if she does not do these things, BK cannot appeal later. She must set up his case so that every possible avenue for appeal has been documented for the future. That is the simplest and most straight forward answer put in layman’s terms.

At this point, IMO, Hippler has 2 choices: 1. Remove the DP in order to hold the trial on schedule. 2. Push the date far out into the future in order to continue as a DP case.

However, there is also the incredibly significant problem of the leak which may have destroyed this case as a DP case depending on everything that was leaked and who leaked it. Evidence may be thrown out which may completely neuter the case. It may be that key witness testimony will have to be completely eliminated. I cannot stress enough how serious the leak is and how much damage may have been done to this case.

JMO.

The only way this leak would potentially lead to evidence being thrown out, is if the prosecution themselves leaked it. I don't believe that for a second. Normally, even in high profile cases, we have evidence like this by now (thanks to a preliminary hearing that didn't occur here). They'll find the leaker, punishment will occur, and that will be the end of it.

AT has had years to prepare for this, and there's no excuse for her not having all her ducks in a row in regards to the penalty phase. If she has the time to take on a second DP case at the same time, the least she can do is make sure she does everything promptly here. It's insane.

 

[Justice101]

Is there a precedence for a court break between guilt and penalty phases?

If Hippler were to find cause for a continuance, could he push just the penalty phase ahead or would he have to push the trial ahead with it?

Is AT forcing his hand? Basically hanging this comprehensive study over his head, as if (with the current schedule) she can't complete it in time, setting BK up perfectly for appeal. He can't be happy about that.

She had already been told to work faster, add staff, manage time. She chose to accept a second DP case but wants to make the time crunch the Court's fault...

Nervy.

JMO

Why on earther would a study need to be done (assumedly regarding sentencing) on a suspect who has not been convicted yet?

For the life of me, that seems premature and presumptive.

 

[Megnut]

Why on earther would a study need to be done (assumedly regarding sentencing) on a suspect who has not been convicted yet?

For the life of me, that seems premature and presumptive.

That's just a function of a DP case.

And it would fit if we were looking at a defendant with raging schizophrenia or an IQ below 70 where those mitigating factors might result in a LWOP, no DP.

A capital defense attorney in essence prepares for two trials simultaneously. It's daunting, to be sure.

But she knew that from the outset.

JMO