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

[Balthazar]

I think the bottom line with AT’s requests for more time (because she still has to explore BK’s genealogy, have him tested, find more expert witnesses, etc.) is why did she commit to a second DP case or any additional cases at all while she had this obviously very demanding one in hand? Each week it sounds like she keeps adding on more things to do for this case when she’s had it for years now. She should have started all these new tasks at the get-go!

If she really lacks time, it’s her own fault for not starting some of the research sooner and for taking on additional DP casework, IMHO.

It is almost a certainty that AT has been working on mitigation from the beginning. However, the mitigation phase is so important and also, so time consuming to research and develop that, in most cases, if the defense requests more time, they must be given it. To not give more time creates the risk that the case will be overturned due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

JMO

 

[Boxer]

It is almost a certainty that AT has been working on mitigation from the beginning. However, the mitigation phase is so important and also, so time consuming to research and develop that, in most cases, if the defense requests more time, they must be given it. To not give more time creates the risk that the case will be overturned due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

JMO

She took on another case, so MOO she had time that she spent elsewhere.

 

[Megnut]

She took on another case, so MOO she had time that she spent elsewhere.

Exactly.

And Hippler has put it on the record repeatedly, she should grow her staff.

She is putting things on the record for appeal and he is crossing them off.

Hippcheck.

He runs a tidy courtroom.

JMO

 

[technicallymissing]

Exactly.

And Hippler has put it on the record repeatedly, she should grow her staff.

She is putting things on the record for appeal and he is crossing them off.

Hippcheck.

He runs a tidy courtroom.

JMO

Hippcheck is too good

 

[Odeto BJ]

Someone sat on a chair in Xanas room and maybe left bloody butt prints? And some creepy Hoodie photos. I can't say the Facebook photos are something that would matter, but maybe? (Guys usually like pictures of girls. Just saying.....)

That's all I have. Anyone else?

Dateline did have information on injuries to the victims that we had not heard before, IIRC. One example: "carving" applied to EC.
Not to be too graphic.

 

[Odeto BJ]

Along the same vein:
The change of venue actually broadens the potential sources for leaks. Discovery was well underway before the county and judge changed and of course the gag order was in place well prior to Hipler's first involvement. That means the court staff in Moscow as well as LE and maybe local PI's had lots of information going by them: and to some degree their stream of information dried up when the trial moved.
So the list of those with access to information like the butt print, the injuries and even the Amazon and cell phone company warrant returns, is longer; and JH does not have immediate authority on a greater proportion of that group.

 

[Boxer]

Dateline did have information on injuries to the victims that we had not heard before, IIRC. One example: "carving" applied to EC.
Not to be too graphic.

True. But how soea that affect ghe case?
The "how" of the murder is completely distinct from the "who."

All the details of the "how" are part of the investigation of the crime scene.

The question before the jury is "was it the accused who did this?"

 

[DizzyB]

Dateline did have information on injuries to the victims that we had not heard before, IIRC. One example: "carving" applied to EC.
Not to be too graphic.

I did hear something about that early on-was it the chatty ME who mentioned it?

 

[Odeto BJ]

True. But how soea that affect ghe case?
The "how" of the murder is completely distinct from the "who."

All the details of the "how" are part of the investigation of the crime scene.

The question before the jury is "was it the accused who did this?"

All correct, though the question will be put to a jury....Its not before them yet.
My post was simply a singular response to: What did we learn from Dateline episode that we did not know before?
If the investigation into the leak takes the shape of listing all those who knew information that was first revealed to the public by the Dateline episode, then the list of those revelations has to be significant. I also believe that the current court cannot finish a list of questions to screen potential jurists if the leaks continue and there will be new broadcasts or publications that reveal more information.
The leak(s) have to be plugged ASAP because as long as new information is being disseminated, and additionally embellished by kneejerk journalism and vidcasters,, the court will continue to have compounding difficulties seating an impartial jury.
JMO where and as....

 

[otto]

True. But how does that affect the case?
The "how" of the murder is completely distinct from the "who."

All the details of the "how" are part of the investigation of the crime scene.

The question before the jury is "was it the accused who did this?"

I too am struggling to understand what part of the Dateline program creates a problem for the defence. Was it just the fact that Dateline produced a story based on their opinion of the murders? That is done with many ongoing investigations and trials.

Is it perceived as prejudicial that evidence is presented with all fingers pointing at Kohberger, or does the defence want a legal inquiry to find out how Dateline obtained their information? To what end? The evidence does point to Kohberger - can't get around that. Will the end result of identifying the leak, if indeed there was a leak, change the outcome? Doubtful.

 

[PinkParis2052]

It is almost a certainty that AT has been working on mitigation from the beginning. However, the mitigation phase is so important and also, so time consuming to research and develop that, in most cases, if the defense requests more time, they must be given it. To not give more time creates the risk that the case will be overturned due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

JMO

that's true but the mitigation person that AT hired passed away and was replaced and AT mentioned that during the first hearing with Judge Hippler in Ada county. Remember and AT said that the new mitigation person was still gettin up to speed on Bryan's case.

 

[ilovewings]

C’mon AT, get a grip. Info about the case has been disseminated and regurgitated on the daily all over social media/interwebs for the past 2.5 years. And will continue to be. The world we live in today, you know this! and I’d argue more people are exposed to the case via various social media platforms, YouTube, etc. versus watching Dateline.

So a few new tidbits about what BK had stored on his phone and a couple of other reveals r/t clearer audio and alleged butt print on chair in XK’s room etc. that case followers didn’t necessarily already know about, ok well weed out case followers and anyone that watches Dateline during Voir Dire. Of the thousands upon thousands of Idaho adult residents’, pretty sure you can find 20 people that haven’t followed the case, watched Dateline, can be impartial.

Geez Louise. AT continuing to try and move the goal posts is getting exhausting. I wish she’d stop trying to imo stall and delay the inevitable, draining state resources, taxpayers’, pocketbooks, and causing more pain and suffering for the poor families’ while doing so. Enough is enough, time to get the show on the road!

I’m with those that postulate the longer this drags on aka if continuance granted, opens up possibility of more leaks happening. Since Judge Hippler’s already upset about the DL leaks, fingers and everything else crossed Judge H rules asap and puts the kibosh on the D’s imo frivolous request/motion to continue.

#JusticeforKaylee,Maddie,Xana,and Ethan

IMHOO

She is really Telegraphing how much she fears trial!!!!

 

[wendy44]

It is in the document I already linked. This is required by the ABA as a minimum requirement from defense in a DP case. Discussion of the requirements of and links to ABA Guidelines are included in this document:

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

“These guidelines are not merely aspirational; they represent the current consensus on what is necessary for effective representation in capital cases”. Page 5. The US Supreme Court consistently refers to the ABA guidelines in determining IF the defenses obligations to their client have been met.

I think everyone here is already aware that effective representation is the most basic requirement for the defense in a capital case. Otherwise, it should be expected that the case will be overturned on appeal.

There is no law cited by the defense in that document. You stated that going back 3 generations is required by law and that the defense has no choice but to do this regardless of innocence or guilt. Could you provide a link to that law?

 

[pittsburghgirl]

This was raised on a prior thread not too long ago. @gremlin444 knows the details. Essentially there was a misunderstanding between XK's parents. The dad said that not long prior to the murders he visited at 1122 and observed (in a positive way) that XK had "changed alot".

Some time after this Ashley Banefield published a telephone interview with XK's mum where she quotes the mum as saying the dad had "changed the lock". What a classic.

Even though the misunderstanding was corrected by the dad subsequent to this, Banefield (naturally enough Imo) never bothered to correct her reporting and apparently sectors of sm have run with the misinformation ever since AFAIK. Jmo

Thanks for correcting this misinformation again, and in such a clear way. It's a powerful example of how reporting that's false can distort our understanding of a case, even if the reporter or others correct it, which of course did not happen in this case.

 

[otto]

There is no law cited by the defense in that document. You stated that going back 3 generations is required by law and that the defense has no choice but to do this regardless of innocence or guilt. Could you provide a link to that law?

The affidavit cites case law that can probably be found somewhere in legal archives.

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

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Three generations is just BK, his parents, and grandparents. Think of it this way: we provide information about medical and psychiatric conditions of family members going that far back all the time. For example, I have two grandparents who died of cancer, one on each side. However, both of those cancers were linked directly to tobacco use. That stuff goes on nearly every medical form I fill out, from doctor's office to insurance. If BK's parents and grandparents have no verified history of mental health diagnoses, cognitive impairment, or learning differences, or no history of criminal violence, this is just a stall and delay tactic. I can point to some genuine eccentricity in an aunt and a grandmother, but no one committed mass murder. I can trace a pattern on my mother's side of failed marriages back four generations. That might suggest a generational pattern that includes my own marriage failures. However, that pattern is easily verifiable through government marriage and divorce data available on Ancestry for my great-grandmother, grandmother and grandfather, and my mother. I knew my grandmother's history but not my mother's (shocking, eh?) and not my g-grandmother's. But finding this stuff took a few hours. The criminal side would be similarly easy. Are there criminal records? Was Grandpa in an asylum? Did someone commit murder? AT should already have gleaned all of this stuff in the first weeks. Interviews, government records (military, death certificates).

 

[wendy44]

The affidavit cites case law that can probably be found somewhere in legal archives.

View attachment 588373

View attachment 588375

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

The courts may refer to ABA Guidelines in determining effective counsel in the appeals process and the defense is citing case law to point that out.

But the OP stated that going back 3 generations is required by law and doubled down on that with other posters, so I'd like to see a link to the actual law.
JMO

 

[otto]

The courts may refer to ABA Guidelines in determining effective counsel in the appeals process and the defense is citing case law to point that out.

But the OP stated that going back 3 generations is required by law and doubled down on that with other posters, so I'd like to see a link to the actual law.
JMO

From reading parts of the affidavit, the defence seems to be asserting that it is her right to have extra time to investigate 3 generations of Kohberger's heritage in order to defend a death penalty conviction. Per the recent comment, medical and criminal history of Kohberger, his parents, and grandparents should be easy to obtain. If there is a criminal or psychiatric history, that may need more time to explore. If there is no history, then an afternoon should be sufficient to do the research.

Autism and Asperger spectrum diagnoses are far more common today than 30 or more years ago. I would be very surprised if there is any documented history in Kohberger's parents or grandparents. <modsnip - opinion stated as fact>

 

[Boxer]

I too am struggling to understand what part of the Dateline program creates a problem for the defence. Was it just the fact that Dateline produced a story based on their opinion of the murders? That is done with many ongoing investigations and trials.

Is it perceived as prejudicial that evidence is presented with all fingers pointing at Kohberger, or does the defence want a legal inquiry to find out how Dateline obtained their information? To what end? The evidence does point to Kohberger - can't get around that. Will the end result of identifying the leak, if indeed there was a leak, change the outcome? Doubtful.

It something in a defense case with nothing to cling on to.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

It something in a defense case with nothing to cling on to.

This seems clear to me.