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

[imstilla.grandma]

 

[Chloegirl]

As the State pointed our, AT has not made a compelling argument for a continuance. More time for exploratory surgery on BK's childhood? That's not how this works. Or no defendant would ever get to trial.

AT  predicted threatened this moments months ago, and Hippler was way out ahead of her then. Mobilize your resources, hire more staff, worker harder, work faster, work better, no surprises.

This is not a surprise he'll welcome. Because it's comes as no surprise. But is also IMO an affront to the Court. They were warned precisely not to do this.

It will fail for lack of specificity IMO.

But not without offending the judge royally.

JMO

Even if I am not necessarily on her side, I understand AT wanting more time. Which does not necessitate that she gets it. JMOO

 

[Arkay]

Even if I am not necessarily on her side, I understand AT wanting more time. Which does not necessitate that she gets it. JMOO

Just my opinion——

If it were two years ago, I could understand AT wanting more time.

In the interim, however, she has repeatedly requested more time for further motions and delays. Redundant motions. To me, it’s simply because she has painted herself into a corner.

AT claims she needs more time, partially because she insists on doing everything herself even though the judge admonished her to hire more staff. Instead, she took on another DP case, which obviously requires her attention as well.

All I see are elaborate stalling techniques. She and Judge Hippler have danced this dance several times already.

Deadlines have passed, yet she continues to throw up more obstacles. For example, requesting to dig practically into prehistory to find a genetic reason for BK’s aberrant behavior.

The families of the victims have to continually endure these delays.

IMO it should be short and sweet. Bryan’s DNA is on the sheath of a murder weapon found with a victim knifed to death. Case closed.

IMO

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932531628019990877

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/060525+States+Opposition+to+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

 

[Megnut]

Of course AT is asking for more time.

She's still looking for an alibi and an alternate perp.

More time won't help.

JMO

 

[PunishThenForgive]

The advantage of Apple is a saved password works on my computer, my iPad and my phone.

Thank you, @pittsburghgirl! I figured out what to do based on what you wrote above.

I was using my iPhone's Safari web browser when I logged into Websleuths for the first time last month. As I am wont to do, I unthinkingly had Google generate a strong password for me.

However, when I later tried to log into Websleuths using the Chrome web browser of my Windows laptop, Chrome didn't supply the password.

So based on what you wrote, I opened the rarely-used Chrome app on my iPhone and logged into Websleuths there, with Google supplying the password. I then allowed Chrome to save the password.

Et voilà, when I revisited Websleuths on my laptop's Chrome browser, I was able to log in, with Chrome supplying the password!

I hope this helps someone else who is equally frazzled by password management across devices with different operating systems.

 

[Fleur-de-lis]

I'm the opposite- WS password is inputted on my Laptop, if I use my phone I'll have to change it since I don't remember it.

Try this: Use the same browser on your phone as your laptop. On your laptop, in Settings, activate the password retention option. When you log into the same browser on your phone, it will autofill. MOO

 

[INfisherman]

Of course AT is asking for more time.

She's still looking for an alibi and an alternate perp.

More time won't help.

JMO

Still no alibry….

Needs morberger time? The weight of all the planets I suppose.

Back to catching smallmouth for me.

 

[PunishThenForgive]

I was so relieved when the court finally published the State's Opposition to Defendent's Motion to Continue and agree with several here that the State delivered quite the blow to the Defense.

I'm concerned about one thing, though, that the State fails to address in its opposition.

Here's the heading of Section V of AT's Motion to Continue:

A Continuance is Also Necessary to Investigate and Remedy the Prejudice of Highly Inflammatory Publicity Released just Weeks Before the Current Trial Date, Including the Recent Dateline NBC Special and a Forthcoming Book.

In this section, AT goes beyond mere concern that the leaks will taint the jury pool. Indeed, part of the reason she wants the continuance is so the prosecution can be punished if they or law enforcement are responsible for the data leaks to Dateline or James Patterson:

The Court has already acknowledged that the Dateline special exposes a likely violation of the non-dissemination order, and Mr. Patterson’s purported “unmatched access” to sources including “local law enforcement” suggests that multiple unauthorized disclosures have occurred. Depending on the results of the investigation into the leaks, a continuance may be inadequate. Once the source(s) of the leaks are identified and the full extent of misconduct revealed, the violations could warrant remedies more serious than delay. At the very least, however, a continuance is essential to allow the extremely prejudicial impact to partially subside, and to give the Court and the defense time to fully investigate and address the scope of the violations.

Nonetheless, the State does not address the potential for suffering "remedies more serious than delay" if someone on their team is found to be the source of the evidence leaks. Instead, Section III of their State's Opposition to Defendent's Motion to Continue is headed:

Despite Intense Publicity, the Court Should Exercise Its Discretion to Deny Defendant’s Motion and Proceed to Trial Using Its Carefully Planned Jury Selection Process.

and the only statement that addresses their possible responsibility for the leaks is this:

The State reaffirms its commitment to comply with the Court’s Non-Dissemination Order, to do everything in its power to prevent leaks, and to assist in determining which person (or persons) provided non-public information to Dateline.

Although @MassGuy and others were initially concerned that Hippler might be forced to give AT more time so she could properly follow the extensive list of ABA guidelines for mitigation in death penalty cases, I'm not so worried about that anymore. I think the State did a good job of addressing this. Their appended Table I alone shows that the Defense has already fulfilled reasonble expectations, given finite time and resources.

I am worried, though, that Hippler may feel compelled to postpone the trial until the leakers are found so he can determine the most appropriate punishment for the leaks, and I fear AT is going to make a big deal about this going forward.

IMOO

 

[jepop]

@twall 8/11/2025 oh damn sorry here in the UK we have the first two the other way around. here it would be 11/08/2025 apologies to our strange cousins across the sea, that voyage did you wrong. its not your fault though.

haha, not in the UK, but Aust, as Commonwealth country, uses the same system. I try to avoid confusing myself by always writing the month in full ie. Trial is slated to commence 11th Aug. After a lifetime of putting the day first, I'm always going to have to do a reverse in my head when reading docs where the month and date have 'exchanged' position!

 

[PunishThenForgive]

Table I, which is appended at the end of the State's Opposition to Defendent's Motion to Continue, is quite interesting and contains two columns: "The Defendant's Cited Area of Inquiry Per the ABA Guidelines" and the "State's Response."

One of the many interesting things in the table: Although the Defense (and State) witness lists are sealed, Table I alone lists 35 distinct mitigation witnesses, each identified by their initials and often by their relationship to Kohberger. Of these 35, none match the individuals of individuals who knew Kohberger back in Pennsylvania and agreed to be interviewed early in the investigation by the Spokesman-Review in the article, Pennsylvania friends, neighbors recall Moscow homicide suspect Bryan Kohberger’s past.

The initials of four of the witnesses match those of his immediate family and are designated as family members, and listed amongst the former teachers were MB and KR, who I assume are Michelle Bolger and Katherine Ramsland.

IMOO

 

[Ghostwheel]

 Rsbm

I am worried, though, that Hippler may feel compelled to postpone the trial until the leakers are found so he can determine the most appropriate punishment for the leaks, and I fear AT is going to make a big deal about this going forward.

But why would it matter WHEN someone is "punished" assuming there even were leaks after the information lock down? (which, btw, I am not convinced of-plenty of information disseminated before they told everyone not to talk including the witness at all, text messages, the barking dog, the blood on the chair and I don't recall all what else. You just could not read it here until it hit msm). If they find out who the leaks are (if they are), they can still be held accountable after the trial.

I mean, does anyone remember the talkative coroner way back at the beginning? Do we think the kids didn't all talk to each other and their families and friends? That they didn't save copies of anything they gave the police? I'm sure there was plenty of information out there from the start.

But even if we were to find out if anyone gave something to Dateline they should not have, it wouldn't matter if they got dinged now or later. The only advantage would be to Defense to move to have someone in prosecution removed from the case, or to remove one or more of their own then claim they aren't ready. I can't see Hippler going there, imo.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Thank you, @pittsburghgirl! I figured out what to do based on what you wrote above.

I was using my iPhone's Safari web browser when I logged into Websleuths for the first time last month. As I am wont to do, I unthinkingly had Google generate a strong password for me.

However, when I later tried to log into Websleuths using the Chrome web browser of my Windows laptop, Chrome didn't supply the password.

So based on what you wrote, I opened the rarely-used Chrome app on my iPhone and logged into Websleuths there, with Google supplying the password. I then allowed Chrome to save the password.

Et voilà, when I revisited Websleuths on my laptop's Chrome browser, I was able to log in, with Chrome supplying the password!

I hope this helps someone else who is equally frazzled by password management across devices with different operating systems.

I'm glad my little plug for Apple helps. And to be fair, if I have both browsers open, I often wonder why my passwords don't autofill as they do on Safari. But there is that secret password list...

 

[PunishThenForgive]

But why would it matter WHEN someone is "punished" assuming there even were leaks after the information lock down? (which, btw, I am not convinced of-plenty of information disseminated before they told everyone not to talk including the witness at all, text messages, the barking dog, the blood on the chair and I don't recall all what else. You just could not read it here until it hit msm). If they find out who the leaks are (if they are), they can still be held accountable after the trial.

I mean, does anyone remember the talkative coroner way back at the beginning? Do we think the kids didn't all talk to each other and their families and friends? That they didn't save copies of anything they gave the police? I'm sure there was plenty of information out there from the start.

But even if we were to find out if anyone gave something to Dateline they should not have, it wouldn't matter if they got dinged now or later. The only advantage would be to Defense to move to have someone in prosecution removed from the case, or to remove one or more of their own then claim they aren't ready. I can't see Hippler going there, imo.

By stating this in her Motion to Continue:

Once the source(s) of the leaks are identified and the full extent of misconduct revealed, the violations could warrant remedies more serious than delay.

I think AT is implying that a proper “remedy,” if the State is somehow responsible for the leaks, would be to punish the prosecution—by having some of their vital evidence thrown out, not allowing witnesses to testify, ordering a new trial with a different prosecution team, or, heaven forbid, dismissing the case since BK can’t possibly get a fair trial.

I know Hippler won’t do this—he’s fair and he’s seen the evidence—but I just think about how angry he was about the leaks, and I think about the Suzanne Morphew murder. The judge presiding over her case punished the prosecution so severely (for not sharing potentially exculpatory evidence) that the State had to drop the murder charges against her vile (IMO) husband, Barry.

I can’t imagine the prosecution having anything to do with the leaks to Dateline or Patterson, but I fear AT (or BK’s appellate attorney) is going to raise hell if it’s found out they or LE are indeed responsible for the leaks after BK is convicted.

IMO

 

[PunishThenForgive]

I'm glad my little plug for Apple helps. And to be fair, if I have both browsers open, I often wonder why my passwords don't autofill as they do on Safari. But there is that secret password list...

What secret password list? Do you mean a list like the one I just this minute discovered in my Google Password app?

I really hate technology—except when it helps me do fun things like research and post on Websleuths, lol.

 

[girlhasnoname]

State’s Objection To Continuance: https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01...position+to+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

Must say 'Well done' to Bill Thompson on his Objection to Continuance. A logical and fair assessment of the case in general and the Defense stunts as of late. IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

By stating this in her Motion to Continue:



I think AT is implying that a proper “remedy,” if the State is somehow responsible for the leaks, would be to punish the prosecution—by having some of their vital evidence thrown out, not allowing witnesses to testify, ordering a new trial with a different prosecution team, or, heaven forbid, dismissing the case since BK can’t possibly get a fair trial.

I know Hippler won’t do this—he’s fair and he’s seen the evidence—but I just think about how angry he was about the leaks, and I think about the Suzanne Morphew murder. The judge presiding over her case punished the prosecution so severely (for not sharing potentially exculpatory evidence) that the State had to drop the murder charges against her vile (IMO) husband, Barry.

I can’t imagine the prosecution having anything to do with the leaks to Dateline or Patterson, but I fear AT (or BK’s appellate attorney) is going to raise hell if it’s found out they or LE are indeed responsible for the leaks after BK is convicted.

IMO

Agree. Leaks on high profile cases have happened since the beginning of time and much more since we are now unfortunately trial by TIKTOK, Instagram, FB, YouTube, SM cranks etc.

I also do not believe that it was anyone from the Prosecution Team deliberately trying to sabotage the case. They have been the epitome of professional in their conduct IMO. Appellate issues are automatic on DP cases and will continue on for years after BK is found Guilty and sentenced.

Judge Hammer Hippler will get to the bottom of it, as much as he can, and will hold those identified accountable. It should not affect the start of the trial, as they will be able to seat a jury through the COV and Voir Dire process just like hundreds of other cases before.

JMO

 

[Justice101]

Of course AT is asking for more time.

She's still looking for an alibi and an alternate perp.

More time won't help.

JMO

She has NOTHING.... so buying some time might allow her to come up with some sort of defense.

 

[girlhasnoname]

She has NOTHING.... so buying some time might allow her to come up with some sort of defense.

There is no Defense for BK, more time isn't going to change that. IMO

 

[SteveP]

Just wondering, will we ever hear the results of the investigation into the source(s) of these leaks in this case, or will they just be dealt with by the court without us ever knowing, assuming they do not involve any key members of the state's team or the defense's, and I cannot imagine that they would? I suppose if charges are filed against anyone, it would be public record, and could be found in a search, if someone knew when and where to be searching? Any thoughts as to how long that investigation might take? IIRC, Judge Hippler wanted the names of anyone with access to information leaked to Dateline within two weeks of his May 15 ruling, so the court has likely had the information for about two weeks now. Will that investigation necessarily have to be concluded before we move on to trial?