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

[x_files]

IMHO Bryan suffers from The Dunning-Kruger effect.
He assumes he is the smartest person in the room at all times.

"The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon by which those least competent in a certain subject area overestimate their skills the most. It also causes those most competent in a subject area to think less of their own talents."

Dunning–Kruger Effect - The Decision Lab

Dunning–Kruger Effect explains why the least competent at a task often incorrectly rate themselves as high-performers because they do not know otherwise.

thedecisionlab.com

 

[NyxNY]

Exactly: that is an absolutely absurd statement- it is ridiculous-- if he has an alibi doesn't anybody believe he would have shouted it from the tree tops- " I couldn't have done this - I was ____________". but nope, his attorney has the gall to actually state they can't tell the court about BKs whereabouts during the crime until they go thru the entire discovery!!!

Which leaves me to believe, as I have speculated before, that he wants to create a narrative around what evidence LE has or does not have. Sure, he will not have proof of this alibi, but he wants to be sure that it can't be debunked like in the Murdaugh trial. Oh the mistake AM made by leaving the phone with Paul's body.

Edited because I forgot to MOO again :\

 

[x_files]

Which leaves me to believe, as I have speculated before, that he wants to create a narrative around what evidence LE has or does not have. Sure, he will not have proof of this alibi, but he wants to be sure that it can't be debunked like in the Murdaugh trial. Oh the mistake AM made by leaving the phone with Paul's body.

Edited because I forgot to MOO again :\

To me this screams GUILTY. But I'm willing to wait and see what evidence LE has. But yeah, weird.

 

[minazoe]

playing games with the system. there is no alibi...there is zip...nothing...

 

[TL4S]

I think the PCA says his phone was utilising cellular resources consistent with being at his residence at about 2.42am from memory. I don't have the PCA in front of me right now. Moo

I think he was heading north on Nevada at c2.44, crossed over Stadium. Turned phone off at 2.47.Then headed south on Nevada towards intersection with Stadium Way at c2.53. May have stopped for a few minutes between turning phone off and restarting car (speculated). Pretty much the phone data is consistent with the video footage of the elantra when in Pullman. Ditto for the pings and accompanying video footage later that morning when heading into Pullman at around 5.25am. His phone appears to have travelled with his vehicle. Moo

I agree, his phone was with him the entire time. Upon reading closer, it doesn't appear he was home at 2:42, only that his phone was within the cell area. I'm curious what he was doing going north then south on Nevada St. We have no idea when he was last home, or what he was doing in those 9 minutes between 2:44 and 2:53. More oddity. Wonder what his cell activity showed prior to 2:42.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

MOO:

Regarding alibis, in Idaho, a criminal defendant doesn't have to give an alibi (see the "If" at the beginning of I.C.R. 12.1 below).

If an alibi is given, the way it's written in the referenced legislation (see I.C. Section 19-519 below) is that it would be evaluated based on "witness" accounts, the way I read it, IMO.

Which makes me wonder if in this case, if there is no actual "witness" or "witnesses" who will testify in defense of BK's alibi (ETA) if he gives one, whether the code would allow for forensic / electronic evidence in lieu of witness testimony?

For example, if (ETA) his alibi is that he was at home at the time of the murders, and the defense were to have a time stamped video of BK entering his apartment at midnight and not exiting until the next morning? JMO.

Also, I wonder if under subsection (4) of Section 19-519 (below), where it says "This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.", if this means BK could be considered his own "witness"?

Rhetorical questions on my part, TIA if any legal folks care to weigh in.

(BBM):

"Idaho Criminal Rule 12.1. Notice of Alibi" states:
If the defendant intends to rely on the defense of alibi, the defendant must comply with Idaho Code § 19-519.
Rule 12.1. Notice of Alibi | Supreme Court

"Idaho Code Section 19-519" states (apologies if this has already been posted, reposting if so for context):
TITLE 19
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 5
COMPLAINT AND WARRANT OF ARREST
19-519. Notice of defense of alibi. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.
(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.
(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.
(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.
(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.
Section 19-519 – Idaho State Legislature

 

[minazoe]

the criminal mastermind made. like 700 fatal errors...lolz. mOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Didn’t one of the attorneys use it as a teachable moment for the judge—that if people hadn’t been so tightly gagged, someone could have explained to the media how ‘standing silent’ works.

MOO

I rolled my eyes when the attorney said that. That was one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard from any attorney. Here's why.

1. The media did not need a gag order to be lifted to determine what standing silent means or why it's used. All it took on their part is a little bit of reading, but I guess their lawyer's argument was that they simply did not want to do so; they wanted someone to TELL them the information.

2. They sure were able to do the research to find out that BTK also stood silent. How much more reading would it have taken for them to understand standing silent? Likely not much, but they didn't bother because...reasons I guess?

3. They seem to have a number of former LE officials in their address book. Surely, they have some lawyers (not involved in the case and, therefore, not bound by the gag order too).

4. The local media, who have a lot less resources and working within the parameters of the gag order, were able to do a much better job of explaining processes. If they could do it, why couldn't the national/international media? No excuse, IMO.

Bottom line: IMO, the argument that the media couldn't educate the public about standing silent because of the gag order is complete BS and I was surprised their attorney even went there.

MOO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Which leaves me to believe, as I have speculated before, that he wants to create a narrative around what evidence LE has or does not have. Sure, he will not have proof of this alibi, but he wants to be sure that it can't be debunked like in the Murdaugh trial. Oh the mistake AM made by leaving the phone with Paul's body.

Edited because I forgot to MOO again :\

That's a good point. Once he puts out his alibi he is locked in.

So the defense needs to "hold his hand" and let him know that "if we say you were here, then we need to be sure there is no phone or video evidence to refute this."

<modsnip>

What all this tells me is that the defense concedes that yes this is BK's car in the video evidence and yes these are his phone records in the evidence.

Let's say this is not BK's car and not BK's phone. Then BK could simply say he was home sleeping.

Your Quote:

Oh the mistake AM made by leaving the phone with Paul's body.

Ditto....Sheath


2 Cents

 

[Cool Cats]

I rolled my eyes when the attorney said that. That was one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard from any attorney. Here's why.

1. The media did not need a gag order to be lifted to determine what standing silent means or why it's used. All it took on their part is a little bit of reading, but I guess their lawyer's argument was that they simply did not want to do so; they wanted someone to TELL them the information.

2. They sure were able to do the research to find out that BTK also stood silent. How much more reading would it have taken for them to understand standing silent? Likely not much, but they didn't bother because...reasons I guess?

3. They seem to have a number of former LE officials in their address book. Surely, they have some lawyers (not involved in the case and, therefore, not bound by the gag order too).

4. The local media, who have a lot less resources and working within the parameters of the gag order, were able to do a much better job of explaining processes. If they could do it, why couldn't the national/international media? No excuse, IMO.

Bottom line: IMO, the argument that the media couldn't educate the public about standing silent because of the gag order is complete BS and I was surprised their attorney even went there.

MOO.

I need to find a hearing link to this but we just came the closest we will likely come to the reason BK stood silent:

Post From:

Orange Tabby​

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.

 

[Nila Aella]

I think the PCA says his phone was utilising cellular resources consistent with being at his residence at about 2.42am from memory. I don't have the PCA in front of me right now. Moo

I think he was heading north on Nevada at c2.44, crossed over Stadium. Turned phone off at 2.47.Then headed south on Nevada towards intersection with Stadium Way at c2.53. May have stopped for a few minutes between turning phone off and restarting car (speculated). Pretty much the phone data is consistent with the video footage of the elantra when in Pullman. Ditto for the pings and accompanying video footage later that morning when heading into Pullman at around 5.25am. His phone appears to have travelled with his vehicle. Moo

After thinking a bit : Agree! Phone with the vehicle. Also Agree with your description!

His phone according to the PCA was consistent with being at home at 2:42
IMO this is not consistent with being South of Stadium Way (which is 5 minutes away) heading North at 2:44. I agree with @TL4S that he is heading North from somewhere and it would be interesting to know where he was before.

If he is five minutes away at 2:44 he gets home at 2:49, his phone stopped reporting at 2:47. So I think he had his phone with him too (If he didn't have it with him it would stop reporting at 2:49 or later).

In your second paragraph...that only works if the 2:42 time consistent with being at home includes SE Pullman. But then why make a point in the PCA that at 2:47 he was in SE pullman when his phone turned off - ie differentiating it from his phone being at home? This makes it sound like at 2:42 he left home and at 2:47 he turned his phone off in SE pullman, I don't think that works with the 2:44 car going North on Nevada. Yours explanation works better.

Heading NORTH on Nevada at 2:44, turns phone off at 2:47....either goes home (might be time for that at that time in the early AM) or stops somewhere for 9 minutes, then turns around to head South on Nevada toward 270 2:53.

This was so hard to write, I hope it is clear.

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

I need to find a hearing link to this but we just came the closest we will likely come to the reason BK stood silent:

Post From:

Orange Tabby​

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.

If the Defense does challenge the GJ indictment, do the motions filed go before the GJ judge or 3J?

 

[Cool Cats]

If the Defense does challenge the GJ indictment, do the motions filed go before the GJ judge or 3J?

WILL NOT HAPPEN!

But on the zero chance it happens, everything goes before Judge John Judge.

The GJ Indictment is solid.

2 Cents

 

[Nila Aella]

Do they have to do this with every piece of evidence that is removed and sent off to be forensically evaluated?


STIPULATION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL THE STIPULATION TO REMOVE EVIDENTIARY ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION AND ORDER ALLOWING REMOVAL OF EVIDENTIARY ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION PENDING. HEARING

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060923%20Stipulation%20To%20Temp%20Seal%20Stip%20to%20Remove%20Evid%20Items%20for%20Forensic%20Eval%20and%20Order%20Allowing%20Removal.pdf

TEMPORARY ORDER SEALING THE STIPULATION TO REMOVE EVIDENTIARY ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION AND ORDER ALLOWING REMOVAL OF ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION PENDING HEARING

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060923%20Temporary%20Order%20Sealing%20the%20Stip%20to%20Remove%20Evid%20Items%20for%20Forensic%20Eval%20and%20Order%20Allowing%20Removal.pdf

 

[TL4S]

After thinking a bit : Agree! Phone with the vehicle. Also Agree with your description!

His phone according to the PCA was consistent with being at home at 2:42
IMO this is not consistent with being South of Stadium Way (which is 5 minutes away) heading North at 2:44. I agree with @TL4S that he is heading North from somewhere and it would be interesting to know where he was before.

If he is five minutes away at 2:44 he gets home at 2:49, his phone stopped reporting at 2:47. So I think he had his phone with him too (If he didn't have it with him it would stop reporting at 2:49 or later).

In your second paragraph...that only works if the 2:42 time consistent with being at home includes SE Pullman. But then why make a point in the PCA that at 2:47 he was in SE pullman when his phone turned off - ie differentiating it from his phone being at home? This makes it sound like at 2:42 he left home and at 2:47 he turned his phone off in SE pullman, I don't think that works with the 2:44 car going North on Nevada. Yours explanation works better.

Heading NORTH on Nevada at 2:44, turns phone off at 2:47....either goes home (might be time for that at that time in the early AM) or stops somewhere for 9 minutes, then turns around to head South on Nevada toward 270 2:53.

This was so hard to write, I hope it is clear.

MOO

It doesn't seem likely he went home after 2:44, either, because google maps shows it taking 6 minutes. He couldn't have done that and gotten back for the 2:53 capture in time, IMO.

 

[Nila Aella]

It doesn't seem likely he went home after 2:44, either, because google maps shows it taking 6 minutes. He couldn't have done that and gotten back for the 2:53 capture in time, IMO.

Yes, I agree.
I left that possibility open since he potentially was travelling 3 minutes North before turning off the phone and the 2:53 SE nevada capture really didn't set a location. But I agree the amount of time is tight and it is not likely.

Edit wording.

 

[Balthazar]

Do they have to do this with every piece of evidence that is removed and sent off to be forensically evaluated?


STIPULATION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL THE STIPULATION TO REMOVE EVIDENTIARY ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION AND ORDER ALLOWING REMOVAL OF EVIDENTIARY ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION PENDING. HEARING

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060923%20Stipulation%20To%20Temp%20Seal%20Stip%20to%20Remove%20Evid%20Items%20for%20Forensic%20Eval%20and%20Order%20Allowing%20Removal.pdf

TEMPORARY ORDER SEALING THE STIPULATION TO REMOVE EVIDENTIARY ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION AND ORDER ALLOWING REMOVAL OF ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION PENDING HEARING

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060923%20Temporary%20Order%20Sealing%20the%20Stip%20to%20Remove%20Evid%20Items%20for%20Forensic%20Eval%20and%20Order%20Allowing%20Removal.pdf

Yes, the defense has to choose the items they feel pertain to their case and request them for testing.

 

[SLouTh]

You made me look
SE Nevada is South of his apartment and NOT near the accident or his apartment.
This is what I find in the PCA

Camera
2:44 North on SE Nevada at NE stadium way: definitely headed in the direction of his apartment.
2:53 SE Nevada towards 270 : I take that to mean he was now heading away from his apartment possibly toward stadium way over to 270? They don't say that in the PCA though. Noting that this is 9 minutes later than the North on SE Nevada time stamp. I did look up the time it takes to get to his apartment from SE Nevada and Stadium Way and it is 5-6 minutes.

Later in the PCA
Phone
2:42 Phone is consistent with being at Kohberger apartment
2:47 Phone is consistent with being in SE Pullman (this might match above)
2:47 Phone stops reporting.

Hmmmm When looking at the above:
2:42 Consistent with being at apartment
2:44 North on SE Nevada at Stadium Way ------but it is 5-6 minutes away?

edit 2:47 changed matches above to might match above: depending on how far he went before heading the other way
ETA: and if his car was headed North on SE nevada at 2:44 he was not home before then right? He was headed that way from somewhere? Maybe his car and phone were in different places, he went home to get his phone? Not sure about that last part....still thinking on it.
ETC 11 minutes to 9 minutes LOL having coffee now!

Total guess here… but surely the defence will “test” the information in the PCA along with other CCTV images of the car and the phone info??

Wouldn’t they get some “expert” do a drive with a phone in a similar car at a similar time of night to make sure it adds up?? And request the phone tower information for that same period to compare? Especially when it doesn’t seem to add up on paper???

And if he does have an alibi that does put him out driving that night, wouldn’t they also “test“ that in a similar manner???

JMO

Edit to add: Do we know for 100% certainty if his car had Sat Nav or not?? That will either confirm the PCA and totally bust any alibi given or else it will provide him with an alibi providing he was out driving around that night.

I am not sure the Police would include that info in a PCA, I think they may save that for trial …..IMO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Do they have to do this with every piece of evidence that is removed and sent off to be forensically evaluated?


STIPULATION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL THE STIPULATION TO REMOVE EVIDENTIARY ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION AND ORDER ALLOWING REMOVAL OF EVIDENTIARY ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION PENDING. HEARING

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060923%20Stipulation%20To%20Temp%20Seal%20Stip%20to%20Remove%20Evid%20Items%20for%20Forensic%20Eval%20and%20Order%20Allowing%20Removal.pdf

TEMPORARY ORDER SEALING THE STIPULATION TO REMOVE EVIDENTIARY ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION AND ORDER ALLOWING REMOVAL OF ITEMS FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION PENDING HEARING

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060923%20Temporary%20Order%20Sealing%20the%20Stip%20to%20Remove%20Evid%20Items%20for%20Forensic%20Eval%20and%20Order%20Allowing%20Removal.pdf

I may be misinterpreting your question, @Nila Aella, apologies if so.

But if by "this" in "Do they have to do this with every piece of evidence...?"

You mean does the defense have to file a Stipulation (and Temporary Order To Seal the Stipulation in this case) for each and every piece of evidence they want to forensically evaluate:

I would think not, it seems like there are way too many pieces of evidence they might want to test/evaluate to do a stipulation/order for each and every one, IMO, but IANAL.

I would think if there are more than one, each one would be umbrella-like, and cover an entire category of evidence, e.g., all the blood evidence collected at the scene.

JMO

 

[jjleroche]

After thinking a bit : Agree! Phone with the vehicle. Also Agree with your description!

His phone according to the PCA was consistent with being at home at 2:42
IMO this is not consistent with being South of Stadium Way (which is 5 minutes away) heading North at 2:44. I agree with @TL4S that he is heading North from somewhere and it would be interesting to know where he was before.

If he is five minutes away at 2:44 he gets home at 2:49, his phone stopped reporting at 2:47. So I think he had his phone with him too (If he didn't have it with him it would stop reporting at 2:49 or later).

In your second paragraph...that only works if the 2:42 time consistent with being at home includes SE Pullman. But then why make a point in the PCA that at 2:47 he was in SE pullman when his phone turned off - ie differentiating it from his phone being at home? This makes it sound like at 2:42 he left home and at 2:47 he turned his phone off in SE pullman, I don't think that works with the 2:44 car going North on Nevada. Yours explanation works better.

Heading NORTH on Nevada at 2:44, turns phone off at 2:47....either goes home (might be time for that at that time in the early AM) or stops somewhere for 9 minutes, then turns around to head South on Nevada toward 270 2:53.

This was so hard to write, I hope it is clear.

MOO

Love your work!