4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #86

[jepop]

Maybe so, but that's not really an alibi. If BF did see someone else, and BK was not the killer, then why not tell the jurors what his alibi is? Where was he and what was he doing at that time of the morning?

Why try to eke out a vague version of an alibi using cross exam questions and the survivor's texts? Why not just directly tell the facts and spell out his alibi?

Exactly, that's not an alibi although that might well be a plan of defense. So what is going on with the D filing a Notice of Alibi when the 'alibi' insinuated (?) would not even qualify as an alibi defense? Just..some mighty gamey strategy there? Making some kind of point again re constitutional rights vs alibi ICRs when all along nor actual alibi (by definition) is even known or likely to be produced? The obtusenss and ambiguity is so underhand Imo.

 

[maskedwoman]

His attorney did contact the couple he was staying with and they both gave testimony at his trial.

And even his own court-appointed attorneys failed to make contact with any of the alibi witnesses, save for the couple he was staying with.

While the couple did testify at Rosario’s trial, the trial prosecutor told jurors they were tainted by their close friendship with Rosario. He was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

He had 13 alibi witnesses but he still spent 20 years in prison

A man walked free after 20 years in prison Wednesday, released from a Bronx courtroom after prosecutors conceded that long-ignored murder alibi evidence needs to be reinvestigated. Richard Rosario …

nypost.com

MOO

That's a fair correction, thank you. But I think my main point stands, which is that he had ineffective counsel. I think it would be easy to conclude that anyone close to him might not be great as his only alibi witnesses. Including party guests that didn't know him so well would have certainly helped.

 

[Nila Aella]

New Blum Article:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjdxNCcgbSAAxWKkmoFHfxvDgkQvOMEKAB6BAgOEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fairmail.news%2Fissues%2F2023-7-29%2Fthe-eyes-of-a-killer-part-v&usg=AOvVaw3WAW-mllh328VnZfbuMWht&opi=89978449

 

[ilovewings]

It’s fine. Yes a judge has a ton of power, but the jury will see right through this defendant.

That's what I thought about Casey Anthony-- didn't work that way

 

[TL4S]

Isn't it possible that the D is going by whatever story BK is telling them? Whether they believe it or have proof of it is entirely insignificant if he has told them a consistent story and is sticking to it. They can try to persuade him toward a different strategy, but if he insists he was somewhere else and wants to use that as his defense, they might just be doing their best to make their case.

If his "alibi" was something that's difficult to prove, AT is not going to throw that out there with no proof and expect him to be freed. She would have to assume (hope) there might be evidence of his story somewhere in the discovery, or via a witness. What else can she do if that is the strategy he insists on? They are still giving competent defense if behind the scenes they are warning him about the risky outcome of such a strategy. Again...the Mollie Tibbetts fiasco trial comes to mind. JMO.

 

[ilovewings]

That's a fair correction, thank you. But I think my main point stands, which is that he had ineffective counsel. I think it would be easy to conclude that anyone close to him might not be great as his only alibi witnesses. Including party guests that didn't know him so well would have certainly helped.

Just reading the brief article, this case sounds like a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution had nothing but two witnesses identifying a mug shot? OMG- that is horrible. He was convicted on that puny so called evidence? IMO eyewitness or even witnesses identifying a mug shot should never ever be the only evidence that puts a person in prison! it is unconscionable

 

[Jurisprudence]

... the Statesman opined that AT does not feel that Kohberger should be forced to present an alibi (unconstitutional) and intends to take up the issue with the Idaho Supreme Court.

[snipped by me] That makes perfect sense. Thank you.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Absolutely NOT! Alibi's should never, ever be given to anyone except your lawyer. They only come into play if needed and then in such a way as to inflict the greatest damage on the prosecution. The reason for this, is the chances of a prosecutor walking back an indictment are incredibly low. 90% of criminal cases end in some form of plea bargain, 8% end with dismissal, and 2% go to a jury verdict. To get a prosecutor to dismiss a charge, they have to absolutely believe that the facts and circumstances warrant it and that means the prosecutor must believe there is no chance of conviction. One thing a prosecutor might do to avoid dismissal, is reduce a charge in order to get a guilty plea. In this case, I'm not sure what will happen.

MOO? IMO? Link?

 

[maskedwoman]

Just reading the brief article, this case sounds like a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution had nothing but two witnesses identifying a mug shot? OMG- that is horrible. He was convicted on that puny so called evidence? IMO eyewitness or even witnesses identifying a mug shot should never ever be the only evidence that puts a person in prison! it is unconscionable

I agree. It was appalling all the way around. But it didn't read to me as an example of why you only give your alibi to your attorney, which is how it was offered.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I suspect that AT could make a lot more money as a private attorney if that was her goal. Also, she was assigned the BK case, IIRC, because she is one of a very few death-penalty qualified attorneys in that part of the state.

And with regard to BK not having paid taxes in the state of Idaho, I don't think that matters. He is facing death by firing squad in the state, and thus, IMO, deserving of qualified counsel.

All IMO

She was in private practice. This isn't her first and/or one and only job.

Second part matters to me. MOO. And, I'm not even a resident of Idaho. This is a supposedly indigent defendant with a multimillion dollar private practice team on the taxpayer's dime.

I'm sure all indigent defendants currently awaiting trial in Latah County would like the same treatment -- but they're not getting it.

All MOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

IMO, reading between the lines, the support for the alibi already exists in the prosecution's discovery and the prosecution's witnesses. As I researched this case, I had some idea many months ago that this was going to happen. However, I always try to remain objective and the only side I am really on is that of the victims, their families and friends, so I set my earlier thoughts about this aside, hoping I was wrong, but now, it appears to be true. Sigh.

I read it the same. If an alibi exists at all she plans to elicit it during the prosecutions case in chief. Reading what she says and believing what she says are different for me, thought I do recognize that there are a lot of sealed documents in this case that we have no idea what they say.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

This is now a matter for the court. It will be interesting to see how the defense works this situation out as I believe BK does actually have an alibi.

[Snipped by me]

(In your opinion?) you think he has an alibi?

I don't believe he does. What I do think however, is that AT believes there enough of something for her to latch onto in the prosection's case in chief from one of their experts and likely one of the surviving witnesses to cast doubt that he was there. This is not exactly the same as an alibi.

IMO -and- MOO, she has found something creative to latch onto to fashion an argument around. Much like she did with her GJ indictment argument. Sounds good "academically" little to no basis in "reality".

Will it work? Probably not. But, we don't know all of the evidence and more importantly, we don't know what Judge Judge will suppress, if anything. So, time will tell.

All jmo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It's a matter of public record that the attorneys in private practice have joined her team. <modsnip - quoted post and response to it removed>

That wasn't my question.

You said (BBM) " I'm sure all indigent defendants currently awaiting trial in Latah County would like the same treatment -- but they're not getting it."

I'm asking, how do you know? <modsnip>

 

[ilovewings]

I agree. It was appalling all the way around. But it didn't read to me as an example of why you only give your alibi to your attorney, which is how it was offered.

I agree with you about that particular issue!

 

[Twistinginthewind]

IMO, reading between the lines, the support for the alibi already exists in the prosecution's discovery and the prosecution's witnesses. As I researched this case, I had some idea many months ago that this was going to happen. However, I always try to remain objective and the only side I am really on is that of the victims, their families and friends, so I set my earlier thoughts about this aside, hoping I was wrong, but now, it appears to be true. Sigh.

I've pondered this as well, all along...

Since BK was arrested and his PA PD said he seemed "calm".

When he didn't declare his innocence outright or give an alibi to LE or his PD.

When his PA PD said "He called the charges "a little out of character.... He said this is not him. He believes he's going to be exonerated. That's what he believes, those were his words.". Public defender says Idaho murder suspect is ‘calm,’ believes he’ll be exonerated: ‘This is not him’

IMO, there couldn't have been a more carefully worded 'non response' for an accused quadruple murderer to say after being arrested and taken into custody.

Then the standing silent/no active plea when he was requested to state his plea in court, which he didn't do, but still got a default one (not guilty plea entered by the court instead of him).

None of that added up to anything concrete in terms of an alibi, IMO.

And since the beginning, if true (I realize it's not proven and there is no source, so MOO) that he asked LEOs who arrested him if they had arrested anyone else, that implied to me he knew someone else had some some knowledge of the lead up to and/or commission of the murders.

Not necessarily an accomplice but more of an aider and/or abetter.

Whom will "show up" in some way in the evidence/data collected by LE during their investigation.

Whom he set up to take some blame or deflect from him doing everything himself.

Or with whom he arranged some squirrelly ruse to have some itsy bitsy piece of evidence planted, which probably can't be proven as 100% true, as to where he was or wasn't during the timeframe of their murders.

For example:

"Jane Doe was on a messageboard/online forum with me from 3:45 am to 4:30 am on November 13th, and the forum will have a record of my messages with time/date stamp, and the IP address of my computer/device I was using, and there will be retrievable(?) data on me accessing wifi or celltower data during that time, and it will show it (the device) was located in Pullman at the time."

And his former PD said this 2 1/2 months ago, that he doesn't expect BK's "stance" to change (BBM):

"With the news of suspected killer Bryan Kohberger's recent Grand Jury indictment, Monroe County public defender Jason LaBar says he doesn't think it changes anything for his former client, who said he was eager to get back to Idaho to be exonerated.

"This indictment is really just the formal charging instrument against Bryan. It's just formalizing the allegations. Idaho will still have to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so I think his stance would remain the same," LaBar said."

Grand Jury indicts Kohberger: Public defender talks about former client

All MOO

 

[katydid23]

I've pondered this as well, all along...

Since BK was arrested and his PA PD said he seemed "calm".

When he didn't declare his innocence outright or give an alibi to LE or his PD.

When his PA PD said "He called the charges "a little out of character.... He said this is not him. He believes he's going to be exonerated. That's what he believes, those were his words.". Public defender says Idaho murder suspect is ‘calm,’ believes he’ll be exonerated: ‘This is not him’

IMO, there couldn't have been a more carefully worded 'non response' for an accused quadruple murderer to say after being arrested and taken into custody.

Then the standing silent/no active plea when he was requested to state his plea in court, which he didn't do, but still got a default one (not guilty plea entered by the court instead of him).

None of that added up to anything concrete in terms of an alibi, IMO.

And since the beginning, if true (I realize it's not proven and there is no source, so MOO) that he asked LEOs who arrested him if they had arrested anyone else, that implied to me he knew someone else had some some knowledge of the lead up to and/or commission of the murders.

Not necessarily an accomplice but more of an aider and/or abetter.

Whom will "show up" in some way in the evidence/data collected by LE during their investigation.

Whom he set up to take some blame or deflect from him doing everything himself.

Or with whom he arranged some squirrelly ruse to have some itsy bitsy piece of evidence planted, which probably can't be proven as 100% true, as to where he was or wasn't during the timeframe of their murders.

For example:

"Jane Doe was on a messageboard/online forum with me from 3:45 am to 4:30 am on November 13th, and the forum will have a record of my messages with time/date stamp, and the IP address of my computer/device I was using, and there will be retrievable(?) data on me accessing wifi or celltower data during that time, and it will show it (the device) was located in Pullman at the time."

And his former PD said this 2 1/2 months ago, that he doesn't expect BK's "stance" to change (BBM):

"With the news of suspected killer Bryan Kohberger's recent Grand Jury indictment, Monroe County public defender Jason LaBar says he doesn't think it changes anything for his former client, who said he was eager to get back to Idaho to be exonerated.

"This indictment is really just the formal charging instrument against Bryan. It's just formalizing the allegations. Idaho will still have to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so I think his stance would remain the same," LaBar said."

Grand Jury indicts Kohberger: Public defender talks about former client

All MOO

It is very interesting that BK has been so calm and self assured, and told his first attorney that he would be exonerated.

I think that might stem from the fact that he felt he was very careful with his preparations and was certain he left little trace evidence/forensics and did not contaminate his vehicle or his apartment. And he didn't have his phone on and never included anyone else into his plans, and didn't have a front tag, and laid low after the crimes. He did a good job disposing of the evidence, had no prior connection to his victims, and felt very confident that he committed a perfect crime. JMO

 

[Megnut]

Isn't it possible that the D is going by whatever story BK is telling them? Whether they believe it or have proof of it is entirely insignificant if he has told them a consistent story and is sticking to it. They can try to persuade him toward a different strategy, but if he insists he was somewhere else and wants to use that as his defense, they might just be doing their best to make their case.

If his "alibi" was something that's difficult to prove, AT is not going to throw that out there with no proof and expect him to be freed. She would have to assume (hope) there might be evidence of his story somewhere in the discovery, or via a witness. What else can she do if that is the strategy he insists on? They are still giving competent defense if behind the scenes they are warning him about the risw q. Q w wky outcome of such a strategy. Again...the Mollie Tibbetts fiasco trial comes to mind. JMO.

For the D to represent that BK has an alibi/alibi defense and even seek an extension of the same is IMO disingenuous. To suggest one will be presented at trial, vis-a-vis the experts and witnesses is IMO a dodge. It denies the Prosecution the proper notice to investigate his claim and prepare their case accordingly.

From this, I conclude that he has no alibi and what his defense plans to attempt to do is challenge eyewitness and expert (digital/forensic) testimony to wiggle open the possibility that his car, his phone, his knife, his eyebrows and his self weren't there. And if there's a teensy tiny possibility all the data points could be a tiny bit off, then he could've been elsewhere. Like an inverse alibi or something. There's not IMO a different place BK was at.

I draw one other conclusion, MOO-- whilst I believe BK is capable of participating in his own defense, I think he is not actually participating. I extrapolate from what I believe to be true about his interactions with people in general and women, in specific. I don't think BK, by nature, plays well with others, especially IMO women. Play, work, relate. I think he largely remains silent in the company of his attorneys because there's great power in that. As well, selself-control. And I happen to think BK lives within a very fixed framework of control.

I don't think he particularly cares about the outcome of a trial. Murder didn't make him suddenly more sociable, more personable, more integrated and associating.

He's a watcher IMO and he's watching.

JMO

 

[Boxer]

To represent that BK has an alibi/alibi defense and even seek an extension of the same is IMO disingenuous. To suggest one will be presented at trial, vis-a-vis the experts and witnesses is IMO a dodge. It denies the Prosecution the proper notice to investigate his claim and prepare their case accordingly.

From this, I conclude that he has no alibi and what his defense plans to attempt to challenge eyewitness and expert (digital/forensic) testimony to wiggle open the possibility that his car, his phone, his knife, his eyebrows and his self weren't there. And if there's a teensy tiny possibility all the data points could be a tiny bit off, then he could've been elsewhere. Like an inverse alibi.

I draw one other conclusion, MOO-- whilst I believe BK is capable of participating in his own defense, I think he is not actually participating. I extrapolate from what I believe to be true about his interactions with people in general and women, in specific. I don't think BK, by nature, plays well with others, especially IMO women. Play, work, relate. I think he largely remains silent in the company of his attorneys because there's great power in that. As well, selself-control. And I happen to think BK lives within a very fixed framework of control.

I don't think he particularly cares about the outcome of a trial. Murder didn't make him suddenly more sociable, more personable, more integrated and associating.

He's a watcher IMO and he's watching.

JMO

Agree.
And MOO he was so methodically quick while committing murders because of this.
MOO He is a stew of emotion but he can execute over the top of them.

 

[10ofRods]

I read it the same. If an alibi exists at all she plans to elicit it during the prosecutions case in chief. Reading what she says and believing what she says are different for me, thought I do recognize that there are a lot of sealed documents in this case that we have no idea what they say.

jmo

I can kind of picture that. Let's say that somewhere in all those files, there's a video of a white Elantra somewhere in Moscow passing a gas station, timestamped 4:15. No license plates can be seen, driver is male but obscure.

Defense will claim that this is Kohberger's Elantra - and that another Elantra was at 1122 King. The fact that the phone data doesn't lead directly to 1122 King will be used.

The timestamps at any particular surveillance camera can be way off, this could be advantageous to the Defense.

So basically, that would be admitting, "Yeah, I was awake and drove through Moscow, but it was not MY Elantra at 1122 King Road." They don't have to try and explain away all the evidence to form an alibi.

It's a weak alibi, of course. There will be no big time expert pointing this out - there will be at least one expert on surveillance cameras, I expect. It doesn't explain why he was in Moscow. It's vague. It doesn't explain why he drove such a long way home that night or why he came back to the house (with his phone) the next morning.

And it doesn't explain the DNA. The rest of that, they just have to get their BB gun and keep shooting holes.

IMO.

 

[pseudo_hum]

If your alibi relies on the evidence presented by the state, you don't have much of an alibi. IMO
Carl Sagan — 'The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.'