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

[wendy44]

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. <mosnip - opinion stated as fact>

Right. She's laying the foundation for ineffective counsel during the appeals process. This defense team is stellar (and I honestly agree with a lot of points AT makes about the state's obligations to the defendant if you're going to pursue the death penalty). There's no way the case can be made that he received ineffective counsel based on the attorneys themselves. This is another way to do that--the attorneys were competent and effective, but unable to follow all of the ABA guidelines for defense counsel in a death penalty case due to the reasons laid out in the motion.
JMO

 

[Arkay]

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.

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

This is what I’ve been trying to discern.

Is it a LAW? Or is it merely something AT has just decided is a “right” because she feels it to be the proper course and wants it allowed?

I do note that she has cited some precedent, but I’m still not certain. If it’s an actual LAW, is it law only in Idaho and perhaps some other states?

I ask because I really don’t recall other cases in which there has been a legal mandate to dredge up longitudinal family history, other than the immediate environment in which a suspect was raised.

Maybe this is common procedure but in cases not so notorious, therefore we remain ignorant of them?

(I’m ignorant of them, at least).

At this point I do still believe it’s a spanner in the works. Backed into a corner with a guilty suspect, evidence piled against him, and here’s another Hail Mary pass.

JMO

 

[Betty P]

This is what I’ve been trying to discern.

Is it a LAW? Or is it merely something AT has just decided is a “right” because she feels it to be the proper course and wants it allowed?

I do note that she has cited some precedent, but I’m still not certain. If it’s an actual LAW, is it law only in Idaho and perhaps some other states?

I ask because I really don’t recall other cases in which there has been a legal mandate to dredge up longitudinal family history, other than the immediate environment in which a suspect was raised.

Maybe this is common procedure but in cases not so notorious, therefore we remain ignorant of them?

(I’m ignorant of them, at least).

At this point I do still believe it’s a spanner in the works. Backed into a corner with a guilty suspect, evidence piled against him, and here’s another Hail Mary pass.

JMO

Also, does this move mean AT doesn't think he will have much grounds for appeal if convicted under DP? I always assumed appeals were not difficult to get in DP cases.

 

[PinkParis2052]

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.

Ethan's injuries came out on a podcast on YouTube but I'm sure if that video is still up on YouTube or not. That creator does have one private video on her Idaho Murders playlist.

 

[jepop]

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).

Agree. And note the motion does not outline or offer a time line of how much longer she anticipates all this will take. Instead we have vague hyperbole and reference to hundreds and even thousands of hours.

What the actual....I can see Hippler coming back and saying something like 'you failed to mention the thousands of mitigation work hours still anticipated when we set the Aug 2025 trial date in September 2024. You failed to raise mitigation research timing concerns at any time at all in 2025 (all recent defense complaints have been directed at the prosecution and method of discovery hand over which Hippler has already addressed in detail,).

* There are approx 4,300 hours in six months. Take away half for sleeping and weekends ( 8 hours sleep/night) and we have approx 2,150 long day, five days a week available hours for a dedicated mitigation expert to do what's necessary between Jan and August 2025. Even if the mitigation team/ researcher only works half time, there surely has been enough time since AT hired the new mitigation expert to get the job done. I mean, the one who sadly passed must have done something throughout 2023 and 2024 right? It's not like the new hiree had to start from scratch. Jmo

 

[jepop]

This is what I’ve been trying to discern.

Is it a LAW? Or is it merely something AT has just decided is a “right” because she feels it to be the proper course and wants it allowed?

I do note that she has cited some precedent, but I’m still not certain. If it’s an actual LAW, is it law only in Idaho and perhaps some other states?

I ask because I really don’t recall other cases in which there has been a legal mandate to dredge up longitudinal family history, other than the immediate environment in which a suspect was raised.

Maybe this is common procedure but in cases not so notorious, therefore we remain ignorant of them?

(I’m ignorant of them, at least).

At this point I do still believe it’s a spanner in the works. Backed into a corner with a guilty suspect, evidence piled against him, and here’s another Hail Mary pass.

JMO

The OP hasn't provided a link to any legislation or law so Imo it probably is not a law and the original post was incorrect. Jmo

 

[Betty P]

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.

Very interesting observation. Hadn't thought of how the change of venue could impact the trial because of a different team handling evidence/ discovery. Something to consider in a couple of other upcoming DP cases where defense is asking for change of venue.

 

[SteveP]

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.

The first hearing with Judge Hippler was held on Sept 26, 2024. The replacement mitigation expert was already in place, by AT's own admission, but was still getting up to speed. Eight months later, one would wonder, is that mitigation person still getting up to speed? I assume that the replacement did not trash everything that had already been done. Seems any mitigation investigation, regardless of who was doing it, should have been finished before now. JMO

ETA Poster @jepop was apparently thinking the same thing as I was, at the same time, but stated it much better than I did.

 

[Arkay]

* There are approx 4,300 hours in six months. Take away half for sleeping and weekends ( 8 hours sleep/night) and we have approx 2,150 long day, five days a week available hours for a dedicated mitigation expert to do what's necessary between Jan and August 2025. Even if the mitigation team/ researcher only works half time, there surely has been enough time since AT hired the new mitigation expert to get the job done. I mean, the one who sadly passed must have done something throughout 2023 and 2024 right? It's not like the new hiree had to start from scratch. Jmo

Math and I do not get along very well, so thank you @jepop for doing the arithmetic.

IMO asking for this ultra-lengthy continuance, two years into the case, is borderline cruelty for the state of Idaho, for the judge, and especially for the victims’ families.

 

[PunishThenForgive]

Hippler’s original deadline for AT to offer proof of alternate perpetrators was Wednesday, May 14 (the day before the pre-trial conference).

While AT met the May 14 deadline, Hippler indicated during the pre-trial conference that he was unsatisfied with her (ahem) offer of proof and gave her until Friday, May 23 (yesterday) to submit actual evidence supporting her claim. He also scheduled a hearing to discuss this evidence on Wednesday, June 18.

AT’s “Defendant’s Offer of Proof RE: Alternate Perpetrators” document appears ONLY on the Current Case Summary page, while her motion to seal the offer and Hippler’s order to seal are available for download on the Idaho Cases of Interest page.

Here is a screenshot of the relevant filings, which were submitted to the court on May 14 and 15, but were not visible to us until after the pre-trial conference:



And here are links to the Current Case Summary document and Idaho Cases of Interest page:

https://s3.dualstack.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/Summary/Current-Case-Summary.pdf

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger

If (and that’s a big if IMO) AT submitted evidence for her alternative perpetrators by the May 23 deadline, I hope we’ll see an amended offer of proof on the Current Course Summary page early next week.

IANAL, MOO

 

[wendy44]

This is what I’ve been trying to discern.

Is it a LAW? Or is it merely something AT has just decided is a “right” because she feels it to be the proper course and wants it allowed?

I do note that she has cited some precedent, but I’m still not certain. If it’s an actual LAW, is it law only in Idaho and perhaps some other states?

I ask because I really don’t recall other cases in which there has been a legal mandate to dredge up longitudinal family history, other than the immediate environment in which a suspect was raised.

Maybe this is common procedure but in cases not so notorious, therefore we remain ignorant of them?

(I’m ignorant of them, at least).

At this point I do still believe it’s a spanner in the works. Backed into a corner with a guilty suspect, evidence piled against him, and here’s another Hail Mary pass.

JMO

AT doesn't even say herself in the motion that it's the law, so if it is, I'm curious to see the link.

Defendants have a constitutional right for effective counsel, but it's up to the courts to determine that it was or wasn't. There are ABA Guidelines on effective counsel for a death penalty case and she's pointing to case law where judges have referred to the guidelines for prevailing professional norms on performance. She's essentially saying they need more time to follow these guidelines or an appeals judge could point to that and say BK had ineffective counsel--because they didn't have the right mitigation experts because the social and family history wasn't done first because they didn't have enough time. But not because they didn't follow the law.
JMO

 

[jepop]

Math and I do not get along very well, so thank you @jepop for doing the arithmetic.

IMO asking for this ultra-lengthy continuance, two years into the case, is borderline cruelty for the state of Idaho, for the judge, and especially for the victims’ families.

The maths is a bit loose, give or take a couple of hundred hours even! But yeah, you get the picture. AT doesn't even ask for a specific length of time for the trial to be continued. It's vague and ambiguous and imo that's ofcourse deliberate. Jmo

* just realised there is a much easier way to calculate how many hours have been and will be available before Aug this year.. 38 hour week, 26 weeks in 6 months, 26 X 38 = 988 (call it 1000). So 1000 hours in six months, but the new mitigation researcher has been around since Sept/Oct last year so that's another four months, minus holidays make it three to be generous; so, there's another 500 hours. Full time is approx 1500 hours to Aug 2025, half time is approx 750. Enough time, enough hours even if they were starting from scratch. Moo

 

[gremlin444]

Forgive me if this has been brought up recently- it’s hard to keep up!! But weren’t there accounts early on about Xana’s family coming to help fix the sliding door due to safety concerns? Was that just a rumor? Apologies if this has been debunked, I’m unsure what ever happened to this information

Let me bring forward what I wrote about this recently:

Man, this part of the story is all over the place, believe me. And it doesn't help that a lot of media doesn't bother to make corrections or do verification, so they just echo the same false info even now.

Turns out it was like ye olde telephone game.

QUOTES FROM DAD
So, here's the original interview with Dad on Nov 17, 2002 that is the source for other articles.

‘She’s a tough kid’: Avondale father says University of Idaho student killed fought her attacker​

The father is now struggling to understand how this could have happened.

www.azfamily.com
(quoted in University of Idaho victim's father says Xana Kernodle had 'bruises,' put up a fight against killer and other articles)

point 1--Dad talks about the front door having a keypad (which you can see in this image Getty Images)

"The door locks with a number code. Every time you go, you have to go around the house because of the number code so they [meaning the killer] either knew that or went around and maybe found the slider door open,"

point 2-- a bit later in the interview XK's dad talks about visiting her and his impression of her:

"And she, really, when I went up there she, I saw her just a week before that and she changed a lot. She had a life. She got to see what it was like to have a boyfriend you live with. And she really turned around. She was really responsible. Helping him out with his studies and stuff. I was really impressed"

MISUNDERSTANDING BY MOM

At the beginning of December, XK'S mom was interviewed by Banfield by telephone.

"Northington says she believes the kids in the house were targeted, as opposed to the house itself. She also revealed that Xana may have had a lock on her bedroom door. Apparently, one weekend before the murder, Xana’s dad, Jeffrey Kernodle, was at the house to replace or fix locks. It’s unclear which locks he worked on."

Mother of slain Idaho student speaks for the first time​

“I believe wholeheartedly that it was those kids who were targeted,” said Cara Northington, mother of Idaho Four victim Xana Kernodle.
www.newsnationnow.com

And media jumped on that and ran with it.

Since Jeff Kernodle didn't do any other interviews until Sept of 2023, what Xana's mom said was never checked or refuted. Keep in mind, Xana and her dad were not close with mom.

 

[PinkParis2052]

The first hearing with Judge Hippler was held on Sept 26, 2024. The replacement mitigation expert was already in place, by AT's own admission, but was still getting up to speed. Eight months later, one would wonder, is that mitigation person still getting up to speed? I assume that the replacement did not trash everything that had already been done. Seems any mitigation investigation, regardless of who was doing it, should have been finished before now. JMO

ETA Poster @jepop was apparently thinking the same thing as I was, at the same time, but stated it much better than I did.

I don't think that the mitigation specialist is still trying to get up to speed but I think that they are still investigating Bryan's background based on what AT wrote in her request for a continuance IMO and still looking for the right experts or specialist to help them with their research into Bryan's background in preparation for the trial.

 

[jepop]

I think people are likely overlooking the intermediary source of a lot of the leaked info. For heaven's sake, he's even in the episode. And already wrote a book talking about info from his confidential sources.

Odd, we didn't hear the defense having any issues when his book came out.

Given things that SG has said in various youtube podcasts/videos, I'm willing to bet a portion came from his as well.

BBB...Blum

 

[SteveP]

I don't think that the mitigation specialist is still trying to get up to speed but I think that they are still investigating Bryan's background based on what AT wrote in her request for a continuance IMO and still looking for the right experts or specialist to help them with their research into Bryan's background in preparation for the trial.

Perhaps, but maybe the expert or specialist that will tell them what they want to hear doesn't exist. Should we just keep delaying the trial indefinitely? (Rhetorical question, not aimed at respected fellow poster) JMO

 

[jepop]

Maybe the expert or specialist that will tell them what they want to hear doesn't exist. Should we just keep delaying the trial indefinitely? (Rhetorical question, not aimed at respected fellow poster) JMO

Jmo, kind of reminds me of needing more time and then some.more and then still more, to just find the right alibi and a witness to that alibi ( moo grainy footage of a white sedan anywhere but on King Road at 4-4.20am Nov 13).

ETA She wants a continuance for more than mitigation research imo. If she gets a continuance then she gets it before having submitted anything on an alibi and ofcourse TODDI..it wouldn't surprise me at all if AT or dedicated team member spent the majority of any continuance time on those matters.

The work of collating and prepping whatever the mitigation expert/ researcher comes up with is a more rote job imo compared with getting an admissible ToDDI proffer past Hippler or coming up with an alibi defense which doesn't involve putting BK on the stand. Moo

 

[Warwick7]

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

BBM
If I remember correctly Hippler put AT on the spot in front of everyone that she took on another client. He wasn't suttle about it either. The fact that he chided her, is all I need to know on his feelings of "more time."

And to top all of that he told her to hire more help....

 

[gremlin444]

BBM
If I remember correctly Hippler put AT on the spot in front of everyone that she took on another client. He wasn't suttle about it either. The fact that he chided her, is all I need to know on his feelings of "more time."

And to top all of that he told her to hire more help....

He also pointed out that she didn't ask for money for things like ediscovery software, like the kind she said was giving the state such an advantage.

I would like to know of other DP cases she has worked on in the past, or even any other non DP high profile cases, in how many of them has she ended up asking for continuances? And if so, what were the reasons she cited. I'd like to know if in any other cases she has ever told a judge that she goes through every piece of evidence herself.

I would think that if this was a regular habit and issue with her, she would have quite a negative reputation in the Idaho judicial and legal system, especially in cases where she is working as a public defender.

 

[otto]

Right. She's laying the foundation for ineffective counsel during the appeals process. This defense team is stellar (and I honestly agree with a lot of points AT makes about the state's obligations to the defendant if you're going to pursue the death penalty). There's no way the case can be made that he received ineffective counsel based on the attorneys themselves. This is another way to do that--the attorneys were competent and effective, but unable to follow all of the ABA guidelines for defense counsel in a death penalty case due to the reasons laid out in the motion.
JMO

There is the other point that she has had more than 2 years to do the work. She has been provided funds to hire the necessary people to assist. She might want to oversee everything herself, but wanting to micro-manage is not an excuse.

She is setting up the dominoes to appeal, but complaining that she doesn't have time isn't a good argument. Asking for more time because of media interest and Dateline-style programs is not realistic. The more time that passes, the more info that will be produced - case in point, the animation of the murders (Hughes) that has been linked here. It's currently incomplete, but it will be as damaging to the defence as the Dateline program.

Regarding the question of a leak, that is still unknown. It looks like digital device data was made available to Dateline. Whether that could alter a jury decision is questionable.