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

[Vaderman]

I am a strong advocate for defendants being innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But "planted DNA evidence"?

Good grief.

 

[Emilie D]

I am a strong advocate for defendants being innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But "planted DNA evidence"?

Good grief.

They will have to come up with a very good reason for the jury to believe they had it in for BK before they even knew it was him. I believe they found the dna way before they linked it to a suspect.

 

[10ofRods]

One way someone "might" have evidence is if they picked up their phone at 2am after they got up to pee.

That movement (which is trackable in the phone) would be recorded and data minable.,

Ah, interesting. Very true. As would the movements of a smartwatch. Of course, having the car moving around (with the phone in it) is a bit of a detractor for jurors. AT may well be thinking she needs a REAL defense/alibi and boy, that must be difficult for her.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I wonder if they’re going to try for any serious “some other dude did it” defense, with the implication that there’s still a mass murderer out there stalking college students.

 

[al66pine]

Is Today a DO-OR-DIE Deadline for Def. to Provide Alibi Witness Info to the State?
Several recent posts discussed 'deadline' for def't to give alibi notice to the state.

Q: By end of today (set by ct-granted extension), if BK has not served notice of alibi (w. location where he was at time of crime & witnesses' names, etc.) on the state, does that mean def would NOT be allowed to put those wit's on stand & testify about BK's alibi?
That is, would court prohibit alibi-specific part of testimony by those wit's?

My A: From my reading of ID statute,* maybe but not necessarily. Reasoning:

Per statutory sub (3), if, prior to or even DURING TRIAL, a party (def't. or state) discovers new wit. whose identity should have been provided re alibi, that party shall promptly notify other party of existence & identity of wit.

Per statutory sub (4): If either def't or state fails to give notice re alibi w wits' name(s), etc. to the other party, court MAY EXCLUDE testimony of any undisclosed witness, re the ALIBI-SPECIFIC portion of testimony.

So, alibi-specific part of that wit's testimony is NOT 'AUTOMATICALLY' excluded (IIUC, not saying I do).

Statutory sub (5) allows ct. to grant exceptions to reqmts of subs (1) - (4) for "good cause shown."

Personally not making a prediction about whether BK will try to offer an alibi or whether the judge would or would not grant an exception; just saying imo ID. statute authorizes judge to do that "for good cause shown."

On my ^ interp, as always, welcoming clarification or correction. ICBW.

===================================
* Section 19-519. ID. St. Legislature (legislature.idaho.gov legislature.idaho.gov)
Idaho Code § 19-519
TITLE 19. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. CHAPTER 5. COMPLAINT & 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

legislature.idaho.gov

 

[schooling]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed for a serious copyright violation>

Looks like their strategy might be to muddy things up. And part of that is trying to present the technology and methods LE used as new, experimental, susceptible to mistakes/tamperingl and ultimately unreliable.

There's been a bunch of technology/forensic heavy cases that have gone in front of juries lately using this technique.

33% of the time they are asking leading and dismissing questions about the expert witness's education/experience/credentials. Planting the seed of doubt.

33% of the time they are quizzing them about vocabulary that sounds foreign to the typical juror. The goal here isn't to education them . But to confuse them and try to get the expert witness to trip up. The goal is to make this stuff sound foreign and unreliable (the pedometer in the YNW melly case is a perfect example of this). This is Watering the seed of doubt.

The last 33% is dedicated to asking questions carefully crafted to illicit the the desired response from the expert witness. Questions like "Is there a chance it could be wrong?" When the witness tries to answer with the caveat the attorney will ask for a yes or now. And even when the answer is 0.000000000001% the answer is yes. The answer is yes.

I keep pointing back at the rapper YNW Melly case as the archetype (ended in a mistrial) for how defense attorneys should attack experts, technology and dna. His attorney in the #1 seat was amazingly effective.

ALL MOO

 

[Boxer]

Looks like their strategy might be to muddy things up. And part of that is trying to present the technology and methods LE used as new, experimental, susceptible to mistakes/tamperingl and ultimately unreliable.

There's been a bunch of technology/forensic heavy cases that have gone in front of juries lately using this technique.

33% of the time they are asking leading and dismissing questions about the expert witness's education/experience/credentials. Planting the seed of doubt.

33% of the time they are quizzing them about vocabulary that sounds foreign to the typical juror. The goal here isn't to education them . But to confuse them and try to get the expert witness to trip up. The goal is to make this stuff sound foreign and unreliable (the pedometer in the YNW melly case is a perfect example of this). This is Watering the seed of doubt.

The last 33% is dedicated to asking questions carefully crafted to illicit the the desired response from the expert witness. Questions like "Is there a chance it could be wrong?" When the witness tries to answer with the caveat the attorney will ask for a yes or now. And even when the answer is 0.000000000001% the answer is yes. The answer is yes.

I keep pointing back at the rapper YNW Melly case as the archetype (ended in a mistrial) for how defense attorneys should attack experts, technology and dna. His attorney in the #1 seat was amazingly effective.

ALL MOO

Yes. Iris Eytan in the Morphew case preliminary hearing ran this strategy.

 

[maskedwoman]

The much maligned fitting squad of BK the TA vs the entire population of his class is IMO neither the start nor the trigger for what followed.

<snipped for focus>

For anyone shouldering guilt that they somehow pushed him over the edge, it only shows how caring they are, how capable of feeling remorse and taking responsibility, feelings most of can relate to, it's natural. You know who's probably not feeling any sense of remorse or responsibility? Yeah, the one who likely felt his outward life was a charade all along and decided one day to stop playing..

It was always just a matter of when.

JMO

I 100% agree that the class confrontation didn't cause what happened at King Road. However, I have begun to wonder if the problems he was having as a TA might have escalated his timeline. If he had any inkling he might lose his job, could it have caused him to take action earlier than he otherwise might have?

I would be interested in hearing from our Sleuthers with experience with the academic environment, whether it's likely he might have realized he wasn't entirely in control of his timeline?

Thanks!

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yes. Iris Eytan in the Morphew case preliminary hearing ran this strategy.

While I totally agree IE ran this same strategy in the Morphew case, they also didn't have a body or any direct DNA tying BM to the scene.

Here they have BK on surveillance videos, odd cellular activity at the time of murders, and his DNA under a sheath left under the body of one of the victims and his odd behavior of dumping his trash in a neighbors can at 3 am. That is just what we know about at time of the PCA, I'm sure there's even more damaging info. tying BK to this crime.

AT isn't going to be able to spin the totality of evidence against BK here, it's too much.

MOO

 

[Justice101]

They will have to come up with a very good reason for the jury to believe they had it in for BK before they even knew it was him. I believe they found the dna way before they linked it to a suspect.

Yes, and there is a really intricate chain of custody paper trail for all evidence.

 

[Justice101]

While I totally agree IE ran this same strategy in the Morphew case, they also didn't have a body or any direct DNA tying BM to the scene.

Here they have BK on surveillance videos, odd cellular activity at the time of murders, and his DNA under a sheath left under the body of one of the victims and his odd behavior of dumping his trash in a neighbors can at 3 am. That is just what we know about at time of the PCA, I'm sure there's even more damaging info. tying BK to this crime.

AT isn't going to be able to spin the totality of evidence against BK here, it's too much.

MOO

The Murdough(sp?) trial had just circumstantial evidence and he was easily convicted. Although there are some notable exceptions (like the OJ jury), most juries are reasonable and smart and look for the truth

 

[Megnut]

I 100% agree that the class confrontation didn't cause what happened at King Road. However, I have begun to wonder if the problems he was having as a TA might have escalated his timeline. If he had any inkling he might lose his job, could it have caused him to take action earlier than he otherwise might have?

I would be interested in hearing from our Sleuthers with experience with the academic environment, whether it's likely he might have realized he wasn't entirely in control of his timeline?

Thanks!

It's possible he was stirred to murder because his future as a student was in jeopardy.... but I think it's actually the opposite. I think, as he became more obsessed with his thoughts (stalking, hating, plotting), the less he was able to concentrate on playing the game of fitting in and doing what he knew was expected of him. While his plan was gaining traction, in his outer life, he was decompressing.

IMO

 

[maskedwoman]

It's possible he was stirred to murder because his future as a student was in jeopardy.... but I think it's actually the opposite. I think, as he became more obsessed with his thoughts (stalking, hating, plotting), the less he was able to concentrate on playing the game of fitting in and doing what he knew was expected of him. While his plan was gaining traction, in his outer life, he was decompressing.

IMO

That's a very interesting hypothesis and quite reasonable. Thank you.

 

[DizzyB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683871941751439360

 

[girlhasnoname]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683871941751439360

I thought the Judge may rule against Expert Witness testimony in support of his alibi defense if they haven't notified that Prosecution.

 

[ktm44]

They will have to come up with a very good reason for the jury to believe they had it in for BK before they even knew it was him. I believe they found the dna way before they linked it to a suspect.

The Douglas Garland trial was local and I knew one of the victims professionally so I watched it very closely. Like this, there was a bloody crime scene but no bodies and LE found no DNA other than victims and their family at the house.

One of the things I found interesting was that since the evidence very circumstantial, the prosecution had investigators walk through the process of the early investigation, early potential suspects and the processes they used to eliminate them.

I feel it had a strong impact on the jury to know how much effort went into conducting a very comprehensive investigation and following the trail of evidence rather than making it seem like the evidence was made to fit a specific suspect. Perhaps the prosecution will take a similar approach.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683835292430798848

 

[girlhasnoname]

The Douglas Garland trial was local and I knew one of the victims professionally so I watched it very closely. Like this, there was a bloody crime scene but no bodies and LE found no DNA other than victims and their family at the house.

One of the things I found interesting was that since the evidence very circumstantial, the prosecution had investigators walk through the process of the early investigation, early potential suspects and the processes they used to eliminate them.

I feel it had a strong impact on the jury to know how much effort went into conducting a very comprehensive investigation and following the trail of evidence rather than making it seem like the evidence was made to fit a specific suspect. Perhaps the prosecution will take a similar approach.

Good point. I believe they will, especially since the Defense has been suggesting they focused 'solely' on BK from the beginning, ie the car model year and the IGG testing.

JMO

 

[x_files]

I am a strong advocate for defendants being innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But "planted DNA evidence"?

Good grief.

He must be paranoid or joking.

 

[x_files]

Did I miss the ALBI that was due yesterday?!