4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #83

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If you were in AT shoes, would you want to know if he is guilty?

The court determines guilt. A lawyer only truly 'knows' their client is guilty when the judge and jury have determined so. After all, some people are wrongly accused and others make false declarations of guilt, it's a minefield.

 

[DizzyB]

I’m as curious as everyone about why an HVAC truck was there, but preventing frozen pipes might have made repair a necessity, MOO. Many leases/rental agreements here have specific tenant responsibility clauses about that.

I don’t recall the date the HVAC vehicle was at the crime scene (gratitude to anyone who can remind me), but our weather here was unusually cold, MOO, for that time of year. It was the first year in recent memory we were unable to put up our ground Holiday decorations the day after Thanksgiving because the ground was already too frozen.

As always, MOO.

The house became a vacant building. Insurance policies usually have a heat warranty on vacant structures-you have to either maintain the temperature at 55 degrees or the pipes must be drained. I was not surprised that an HVAC company was there.

 

[TL4S]

Agree with most of this. AFAIK no posters accused AT of creating a fake alibi. Manipulate the alibi maybe. As much as I believe BK is the right guy for this. I'm doubtful BK admitted guilt even to his lawyer. AT is doing her job in trying to find evidence to support whatever BK is telling her. I'm more inclined to believe BK gave her a fake alibi which is why she needs more time to find something to support it or re-phrase the alibi bc of time or inconsistent evidence with what BK falsely reported to her. I think it says AT is professional in spite of any personal feelings she may have about BK's guilt or innocence. If she can't do that she shouldn’t be a defense attorney.

JMO

The Mollie Tibbetts trial was a prime example of a defendant (who had actually already confessed) telling their defense team a crazy alibi, and that team had to therefore argue this crazy alibi. It was difficult to even watch because it put the defense attorneys in such a bad light, yet what could they do? AFAIK, they couldn't force their client's hand, so unless they tried to resign from the case, they were in a position to fight for their client despite how it looked. I'm not saying this is what's happening in BK's case, but it is certainly not impossible. JMO.

 

[ilovewings]

Did i understand that the defense wants to see and evaluate
The prosecution's evidence before providing an alibi!!!
Huh???.If BK has a legitimate alibi why wouldnt he shout
It out loud and clear-- I dont get it

 

[U.N. Known]

But we've actually heard from very few students given how many must have been enrolled in those undergraduate courses. So I'm not sure the opinions of those few can be taken as factually true statements about BK's behavior.
JMO

I've always thought the same. Other than a few unicorn instructors, if you ask a few random students, then narrow those down to the ones willing to talk to media, you'll find some who are/were disgruntled. Considering the nature of the case and the vitriol surrounding BK, IMO few, if any students would want to stick their necks out to defend or even give a neutral opinion about him. Even if he'd been my favorite TA, I'd keep my mount opinion to myself to avoid the hounding.

 

[I'm Nobody]

If you were in AT shoes, would you want to know if he is guilty?

Good question. Would I WANT to know if he is guilty? IF in AT's shoes, my job would be to defend my client to the best of my ability whether guilty or innocent. If BK is guilty, if his lawyer, I'd want to know because the fight plan would change to getting him the best possible deal under that avenue. Different strategies would take over.

Both the prosecution and defense are fighting the good fight upholding the laws. Me personally, I'm a sentimental schmuck, always on the victim's side; my personal feelings run too high to be a defense attorney.

I agree with @Observe_dont_Absorb that the jury or judge decides guilt in the end.

JMO

edit ;

 

[AusLaw]

Subpoenas.

snipped for focus. @AusLaw Thanks for including in your post a link to ID. Rule.

Is it possible, while posting you were momentarily distracted, and your fingers went rogue on you, typing "subpoenas must order all parties to appear" instead of "all PERSONS to appear."

That kind of thing happens to me more often than I'd care to admit.

Any individual, business, or even governmental institution that is a part of a legal procedure is referred to as a "party" or "parties" in legal language.

Person/Party, Persons/Parties can be used interchangeably.

 

[Orange Tabby]

The court determines guilt. A lawyer only truly 'knows' their client is guilty when the judge and jury have determined so. After all, some people are wrongly accused and others make false declarations of guilt, it's a minefield.

I don’t want to get too deep into the epistemological weeds, but a verdict in a court of law is not a guarantee of truth. It is not a foolproof way of “knowing”.

A false positive (or Type I error) occurs when a defendant is found guilty but is in fact not guilty. The Innocence Project has identified numerous Type I errors over the years.

A false negative (or Type II error) occurs when a defendant is found not guilty when he is in fact guilty. Call me crazy, but I have no hesitation in saying that OJ killed Nicole and Ron, and moreover that for all their mistakes, the prosecutors in Simpson’s criminal trial did in fact prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. YMMV.

Type II errors may occur without whacked out juries. The exclusionary rule, lying witnesses, and lost evidence are just a few explanations for some Type II errors. The exclusionary rule itself prioritizes the defendant’s rights over truth. (I’m not arguing against the ER, because I believe in protecting the rights of defendants. But it does sometimes affect the truth value of a verdict.)

In spite of this, I have trust in our process of justice. Most of the time, I believe the system gets it right.

 

[Kavya01]

Agree with most of this. AFAIK no posters accused AT of creating a fake alibi. Manipulate the alibi maybe. As much as I believe BK is the right guy for this. I'm doubtful BK admitted guilt even to his lawyer. AT is doing her job in trying to find evidence to support whatever BK is telling her. I'm more inclined to believe BK gave her a fake alibi which is why she needs more time to find something to support it or re-phrase the alibi bc of time or inconsistent evidence with what BK falsely reported to her. I think it says AT is professional in spite of any personal feelings she may have about BK's guilt or innocence. If she can't do that she shouldn’t be a defense attorney.

JMO

Yes, this exactly. I never suggested or meant to imply in my original post that I thought his counsel was going to make up the alibi and knowingly lie to the court, I was reasoning from what the criminology student-defendant might cook up to sell to the world, his own counsel included in that world.

 

[jepop]

I continue to wrestle with the whole standing silent thing. I understand that he had the right to do it and it doesn't make him any more or less guilty. No problem. But if the judge is going to enter a NG plea on his behalf, I just don't don't understand why the defendant doesn't just say NG and move on.

Google gave me nothing but a general explanation, or articles about BK. Nothing about the benefits of standing silent, beyond it possibly helping him should a plea negotiation occur later on. But defendants can change their plea from not guilty to guilty at any time, so I still don't understand. A few attorneys have said that by standing silent, the defendant is not accepting that the proceedings are valid. But the proceedings are going ahead whether the defendant accepts them or not so, again, what's the point?

I would greatly appreciate if anyone else has, or has found, found better information on this approach. Thanks!!

I did a bit of research on an earlier thread. Not entitely sure if this is what AT meant when addressing Court 9th of June, but suspect it is. If you're interested here's the link. Moo

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #81

Like many of you I was also paying close attention to BK's reactions to the names read. But my interpretation is different from what has been suggested above. I think, when Kaylee's name was mispronounced, he was clenching his jaw in annoyance (like many of us were!). When the judge then ALSO...

www.websleuths.com

 

[jepop]

I continue to wrestle with the whole standing silent thing. I understand that he had the right to do it and it doesn't make him any more or less guilty. No problem. But if the judge is going to enter a NG plea on his behalf, I just don't don't understand why the defendant doesn't just say NG and move on.

Google gave me nothing but a general explanation, or articles about BK. Nothing about the benefits of standing silent, beyond it possibly helping him should a plea negotiation occur later on. But defendants can change their plea from not guilty to guilty at any time, so I still don't understand. A few attorneys have said that by standing silent, the defendant is not accepting that the proceedings are valid. But the proceedings are going ahead whether the defendant accepts them or not so, again, what's the point?

I would greatly appreciate if anyone else has, or has found, found better information on this approach. Thanks!!

Just my opinion, but I think there's a psychological element to it as well. Not something that can be proven in an evidentiary sense. Just in silently denying the prior proceedings, though it practically changes nothing, could provide a boost of some sort- to the morale of defendant? Whether that's viewed as right or wrong? Moo

 

[katydid23]

Yes, this exactly. I never suggested or meant to imply in my original post that I thought his counsel was going to make up the alibi and knowingly lie to the court, I was reasoning from what the criminology student-defendant might cook up to sell to the world, his own counsel included in that world.

The problem is, if he is guilty and was actually in the Elantra on King Street at 4 am, he has no alibi to give them. So if so, and they are asking for an extension because they need to review more data, it seems like they might be looking for a reasonably believable alibi to put forth.

If he is not guilty, then he should gave a true account of his whereabouts, and why the need for an extension? He could tell them he was home asleep and then use this time to keep looking through the data for some corroborating info, like a ring camera across the street that can see him coming and going?

 

[10ofRods]

If I was in jail for a quadruple murder, I’d likely want to know where the weakest evidence was in the State’s case before I told them why I couldn’t have committed it….

I also might tell my defense team that exculpatory evidence exists in areas where the prosecutors haven’t handed evidence from yet….

Just saying…MOO

And I'd be frustrated, as the defense attorney, if you couldn't be more specific. But, that's the role of the defense attorney, isn't it? They don't want their defendant lying or dissembling or any of that.

PD's must have nerves of steel and the patience of Job.

A client who suggests evidence that doesn't really exist is a pain to have, IMO. Puts the Defense in an awkward situation.

IMO.

 

[jepop]

I’m mostly referring to one thing. The Nissan Sentra

Its is a super specific car model. 1 of hundreds. 1 of dozens of Nissans. Does not resemble an Elantra in any meaningful way. I don’t think we’ve ever seen it reported out before that article.

You’re right about the rest. Inferred and a reporter creating a narrative around known facts.


Also, use the Pocket app or your browsers build in reader mode to bypass the paywall.

No problem, I mis-read sentra- thought it was a typo for elantra! - at the time I commented I didn't have access to the NYT article, not long after someone posted a free article link via twitter.

 

[jepop]

? the source for the Nissan information. Would be interesting to know IMO.
I am not so keen on the UPS angle - mainly because the sealing of the UPS search warrant does not specify right to fair trial. IMO it would specify 6th ammendment if they found an elantra related to this prosecution on the UPS video.
Maybe what is important is what they didn't find on the UPS video? JMO

Yes, exactly, Imo they didn't find BK's elantra, and any they did find and could identify were investigated and eliminated (ideally!). Moo.

 

[jepop]

Thank you @Balthazar.
Your article also states they retrieved video from the 76 station on Main Street which I missed before.
After reading @North_Idaho_Nony s post below: I think Westbound on White and turned on a side street. The only side Streets I see near the station are White Place and Hanson Ave across the street, and that little road/alley from White to Troy that travels beside the station.
JMO

Thank you @North_Idaho_Nony for refreshing my memory. I now recall that discussion where the camera was pointed at White Ave. The "turning down a side street" to me seems like the car did not go all the way to 95?
Still thinking on the car/travel/time of that capture. MOO

ETA all the way to 95 on White Ave, could have gone on that little side street by the station.

If that car is an elantra, then could be where defendant went/drove after one of the three passes of1122 King Road, between 3.30am and 4.04am. I'm sure LE were very interested in that footage and followed up accordingly. Moo

 

[jepop]

The lights were on at the house so BK allegedly drove all the way over to the area of the gas station and then came back? Why would he do that? The lights were on at 1122 King Rd, so why not park and wait on Walenta or somewhere else nearby? It just seems to me that the more you drive around in the area where you intend to commit a crime at 3-4am, the more likely you are to attract attention. Whereas, you could park and lay down in your car for a bit to wait for the lights to go out in the house and most people would think it was a vacant car.

Also, what camera caught him parking at 4:04am? We know about the camera at the house next door to 1122 King Rd, but that faced away from 1122 King Rd, That would be the one that caught him circling and making the 3 point turn. What camera caught him parking?

We know from the PCA he made x 3 passes...he left the area and returned is what I read that as. Between 3.29 and 4.04am. I'm interested in your interpretation of the PCA if it differs from this? Ofcourse we are free to speculate pn why he didn't park and wait at 3.29am, and that has been done on many threads in the case. The camera didn't catch him parking. It caught him driving east past 1122 before parking somewhere else (off camera to the east of the house) Imoo. Most have deduced it must have been in the lot situated above and to the south-east of the front of the house. Moo. All my inferences come from my reading of PCA. Again, would be interested in what inferences you draw from your reading of it? Moo
spelling edit.

 

[katydid23]

That's quite an accusation to aim at AT. If that were true and she were colluding with BK to create a fake alibi, I'm pretty sure she'd be engaging in unprofessional conduct for an attorney (at the very least.)
JMO

No one is accusing her of a crime. My dad was a long time, well respected defense attorney so I do understand how this alibi stuff works. Every 'guilty' party that went on trial had an alibi they set forth, with the aid of their attorney. I haven't seen any attorneys being in legal trouble if their client claimed to be at their girlfriend's when the crime was taking place across town.

 

[katydid23]

It was Mobil station at 802 Troy Rd. (Troy Rd is the same as Hwy 8). The attendant said the car was going away from the direction of King Rd and turned on a side street. Hwy 8 runs Northwest. Mobil station is on the Northeast side of Hwy8. Based on the photo of the car taken from the Mobil station, I think it was traveling Southeast on Hwy 8 but have a look on Googlemaps and see what you think. And also look at where 1122 King Rd is compared to this location. I must admit, I'm a bit puzzled.

Idaho murder update: Clerk at gas station spots 'white sedan'

A clerk at an Idaho gas station may have spotted a white sedan speeding away from the scene of the University of Idaho students' off-campus house the night of the quadruple homicide.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I have heard people say that the car seen in the Mobil station video and the car seen in BK's traffic stops have different looking driver side mirrors. I do not know if that is true though.

 

[Orange Tabby]

I did a bit of research on an earlier thread. Not entitely sure if this is what AT meant when addressing Court 9th of June, but suspect it is. If you're interested here's the link. Moo

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #81

Like many of you I was also paying close attention to BK's reactions to the names read. But my interpretation is different from what has been suggested above. I think, when Kaylee's name was mispronounced, he was clenching his jaw in annoyance (like many of us were!). When the judge then ALSO...

www.websleuths.com

I think you are correct jepop. But IANAL.

Going on recollection, this is what I took from Friday’s second hearing before Judge John Judge.

At one point JJJ gave an example of what irritated him about media coverage up to this point. 3J said something to the effect of, standing silent is a defendant’s right under Idaho law and a not guilty plea is automatically entered for him. So why is the media making a big deal about it?

Wendy Olson, lawyer for the media, replied that a less comprehensive gag—oops! Make that dissemination—order would have allowed any party to the current gag order to explain that to the media, which would actually reduce media speculation without jeopardizing any of the defendant’s rights.

Later, when Jay Logsdon, one of BK’s attorneys, had his own chance to reply, he told 3J that standing silent also preserved the defendant’s right to challenge aspects of the grand jury indictment, and the judge thanked him for the information. (3J didn’t know? I’m not sure; he might have been thanking him for reminding himself of something he did know but failed to mention. He’s an odd duck at times. I didn’t hear it myself but it was widely tweeted that 3J couldn’t pronounce sequestration and had to be helped with the word—he must have had food poisoning again!)

I am pretty sure, BTW, that Anne Taylor said almost nothing during this hearing other than words to the effect of, Mr Logsdon will be arguing for the defense today.

The foregoing is based exclusively on my memory of the hearing, and could therefore be incorrect.

Does anyone know if both or either of those proceedings from Friday are available in their entirety? I looked on Saturday and could not find them on YouTube.

And jepop, I remember your “standing silent” post from when you first made it and it made a lot of sense then as now. I’m glad you linked to it above for anyone who missed it the first time.