4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

[maskedwoman]

Speaking to LE did NOT help him and, in fact, made things far worse for him.

Respectfully, you asked for one example. Not one successful example. I understand your viewpoint but our mileage may vary.

 

[maskedwoman]

Here is where I think they are trying to go---They put the female genealogy expert on the stand to admit that she sometimes breaks the rules by circumventing regulations concerning privacy--
depending on what website or database was accessed and whether that relative opted in or opted out of law enforcement being able to access the info.

So they are saying that the experts hired by LE may have broken those same regulations and if so, the DNA SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED from the trial.

I think you're right about where they are going but I will totally shocked if that works. Technically, any LE might break the rules on every case they investigate. If the threshold were that low, no evidence would ever be admissible. Fingers crossed.

 

[ArianeEmory]

My mantra right now is: “this is all just theater”.

 

[al66pine]

T-shirt Promoting DP? "Testimony by T-shirt" ???

I wonder if a victim's family member would be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a message promoting Idaho's death penalty by firing squad during the actual jury trial when it begins. Just curious about rules of courtroom decorum, etc. ...

Snipped for focus @Sundog
If your Q is serious....? Briefly, my take:

Possible that judge would order victim's family member to cover the writing on t-shirt (put another shirt or jacket over it) or order wearer be removed from the courtroom.

Why? Because judges may issue rules applicable to their courtrooms generally (sorry no link atm) and may issue an order of courtroom decorum applicable to a specific case.
Example last month, Idaho judge issued order banning "clothing with inappropriate or disruptive messaging." below.*
Possible that judge will do same/similar here.

Personally doubting if judge would allow victim-spectators to give "testimony by t-shirt" or VIS during guilt phase of trial, even if not on the witness stand.

Victim Impact Statements, which may be presented only at sentencing hearing, may "not recommend punishment for the crime in a capital case." *

imo

ETA: Welcoming correction, as ICBW.

=====================================
Not so briefly
* "Fourth Judicial District Judge Nancy Baskin issued a courtroom decorum order, mandating spectators remain silent, refrain from outbursts, do not bring signs or wear clothing with inappropriate or disruptive messaging,among other basic requirements."

Threats to judges remain a concern in Idaho - Idaho Reports

By Ruth Brown, Idaho Reports The judge presiding over a civil case involving Ammon Bundy issued a relatively unique order on July 5, prior to the start of the trial. Fourth Judicial District Judge Nancy Baskin issued a courtroom decorum order, mandating spectators remain silent, refrain...

blog.idahoreports.idahoptv.org

** 19-2515. Sentence In Capital Cases -- Special Sentencing
Proceeding...***
"(5) (a) . . . Evidence concerning the victim and the impact that the death of the victim has had on the victim's family is relevant and admissible. Such evidence shall be designed to demonstrate the victim's uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community by the victim's death. Characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant and the appropriate sentence shall not be permitted as part of any victim impact evidence..."

Section 19-2515 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

 

[Boxer]

MOO The prosecution staying inside too narrow of a local murder case frame work.
MOO The prosecution thinking the appeal is where these constitutuonal issues will come up, but no, it's happening now.

 

[Sundog]

But a clear and final deadline I'd say. The D won't get to file for another extension then provide a half alibi with vague allusions to witnesses to be called, maybe, sort of during trial. Moo The D also asked for an exception in their objection to Alibi Demand and I think that this has been denied by the Judge by virtue of ordering (soon to be) the final deadline to produce witnesses or go without. There will be no exception. Moo

I think it's likely that the defense will submit pretty much the same thing on September 8th that they submitted earlier. Maybe some tweeks so it looks slightly different, out of respect for the court/judge.

But at yesterday's hearing on the motion to compel, the prosecution acknowledged that the first notice of alibi that the defense provided indicated that BK drove around all night. Okay, the prosecution said, then tell us where he went (presumably so the prosecution has time to verify before the trial). In response, the defense said that BK has the right to testify or not about his alibi defense, and at this time she had nothing more to say. She also stated that the defense may cross examine some witnesses for the prosecution in relation to BK's alibi. (Note: This is all my paraphrasing.)

So pretty much she said exactly the same thing that was in the notice of alibi defense already provided to the court. And the judge pretty much said, well, just provide information by September 8th if you are planning to have alibi witnesses.

So IMO, nothing has changed, and it isn't clear or not whether the defense can cross examine the state's witnesses in relation to BK's alibi defense. And the defense has no intention, IMO, of answering the state's question about where BK was driving in relation to the alibi defense statements already submitted.

So the defense just got another extension if they want it, to September 8th, with nothing compelled, except a new deadline.


ETA - I think the judge met his goal of having this all on the record, he gave another extension (that's two extensions now), and if this case goes to appeal he has covered his bases with respect to fairness to the defendant.

All JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

I like your post MassGuy which girlhasnoname expanded on. I hope you both don't mind if I use your posts as a springboard to draw in other facts and make a complete chronological list of facts adverse to BK. The DNA smeared sheath is arguably a 'smoking gun' but I think all of the circumstances put together (and being only what we know at this time) lead to an irresistible inference of guilt.

If I have missed anything material let's add it to the list and if any of these have not yet been verified (or at sufficiently corroborated to permit their inclusion) I apologise and will edit the post. In fairness, perhaps a list of facts/evidence which objectively would tend to indicate innocence could be drawn up and compared!


1. BK's phone was in the King Road residence area on 12 occasions during the 5 months before the murders, 11 of which were in the late evening or early morning

2. BK bought a KABAR knife and sheath a few months before murders

3. A car matching BK's car left WSU and travelled towards Moscow about an hour before the murders

4. BK's phone left WSU and travelled towards Moscow about an hour before the murders

5. BK's phone was switched off or put in airplane mode about an hour before the murders

6. A car matching BK's car entered Moscow just before the murders

7. All 4 victims were killed with a knife believed to be a KABAR knife

8. BK's DNA was found on a KABAR knife sheath located underneath a victim

9. Eyewitness saw intruder consistent with BK's physical description leave King Road residence just after murders

10. Shoe print matching BK's show size (size 13) found at intruder exit point

11. A car matching BK's car was in King Road just before and just after the murders

12. The car referred to in 11. had no front licence plate and neither at that time did BK's

13. BK's phone resumed reporting to cellular network 20 minutes after the murders travelling away from Moscow

14. A car matching BK's car returned to WSU about 1 hour after the murders

15. BK's phone was in the area of the King Road residence about 4 hours after the murders

16. Since the day of the murders BK's phone has never again been detected in the area of the King Road residence

17. At 5:30pm on the day of the murders BK's phone returned to the same area it was in immediately after the murders (Johnson, Idaho) and then stopped reporting to the network for 3 hours until 8:30pm

18. BK dumped his trash in neighbour property/bins

19. BK wore latex gloves following murders

20. BK's contrasting behaviour & mood reported by his students before vs immediately after murders

21. BK's 'alibi' puts him 'driving around' at the relevant time the murders were committed


This is just what we know at the time of the PCA and pre-gag. As to what's not on the list: there is some less compelling but still relevant evidence (eg. BK's internet posts predating murders about how it feels to commit crimes & victim selection, BK's creepy behaviour towards women). There are also reports in the media of some other incriminating facts some of which if proven are even more damaging: ID cards found during search of parents' home; the instagram messaging; BK's owns sister queried whether he was the murderer.

One thing I am confused about: we know that LE conducted video canvassing of relevant CCTV/cameras in Moscow (crime scene) and near WSU (BK residence) from the early morning of the murders which shows a white Hyundai Elantra leaving WSU --> a matching vehicle entering Moscow --> a white Hyundai Elantra returning to WSU (suspected to be BK's on each occasion) . This is all referred to in the PCA. LE corroborates this video evidence with BK's cell data which closely tracks the Elantra's movements in this video and therefore allows/supports the inference that the white Hyundai Elantra appearing in all of this footage is the one and the same and is BK's car.

However while the PCA then goes on at p.14 to refer to additional cell data which indicates BK's phone travelled from WSU to Moscow at 9am just 4 hours after the murders, there is no mention of any associated video footage of a white Hyundai Elantra which marries up with the cell data as was performed by LE for the original travel to/from Moscow.

"Further review indicated that the 8458 Phone utilized cellular resources on November 13, 2022 that are consistent with the 8458 Phone leaving the area of the Kohberger Residence at approximately 9:00 a.m. and traveling to Moscow, ID. Specifically, the 8458 Phone utilized cellular resources that would provide coverage to the King Road Residence between 9: 12 a,m. and 9:21 am. The 8458 Phone next utilized cellular resources that are consistent with the 8458 Phone traveling back to the area of the Kohberger Residence and arriving to the area at approximately 9:32 a.m."

Surely if LE was able to obtain video footage from only 4 hours earlier, LE would also have obtained video footage (in clear daylight no less, affording far better clarity) of a white Hyundai Elantra leaving WSU and making the trip back to Moscow around 9am that morning? As at the date of the PCA, LE would have had ample opportunity to have collected and reviewed this further video evidence, including from the very same cameras it had obtained the earlier footage. Does anyone have any theories about this 'gap' in the evidence - even at the PCA stage?

Edit: I'm guessing that in the days and maybe even weeks after the murders LE was focussing on the critical time before/after the murders and didn't search/or obtain video footage of much later that morning (9am) because they didn't know BK had apparently returned to the scene until much later (December 2022) and only once they had reviewed his cell phone data and discovered his phone had pinged at/around the King Road residence at 9am that same morning. Perhaps by that time it was too late to get video footage of that time period (between say 830am and 1030am)? Or perhaps they have since obtained that footage after the PCA - assuming (which I do) he drove the Elantra.

So damn good. And there is more coming. I know it.

 

[Sundog]

But a clear and final deadline I'd say. The D won't get to file for another extension then provide a half alibi with vague allusions to witnesses to be called, maybe, sort of during trial. Moo The D also asked for an exception in their objection to Alibi Demand and I think that this has been denied by the Judge by virtue of ordering (soon to be) the final deadline to produce witnesses or go without. There will be no exception. Moo

From the alibi defense notice that the Defense filed already, it doesn't sound like they ever had a plan to call their own alibi witnesses anyway. It sounds like the defense plans to use the prosecution's witnesses by way of cross examination to support their alibi defense. And, of course, BK is always able to take the stand in defense of his own alibi, although I don't think that will happen.

And we know that a judge is allowed to make exceptions during the trial with regard to the alibi defense if circumstances warrant it. So to be continued, IMO.

 

[Sundog]

I agree with you.

But the defense is going at it a different way, and it kind of worries me. They seem to be saying that without IGG the state would not have been able to identify who BK was. All they had was unknown DNA from the sheath with no way to identify whose it wAs.

To do so they used IGG, but the process of doing that often breaks regulations of privacy, and IF SO it would be unfair/unethical to use that tainted information in a DP trial.

So the DT is asking for full transparency and all IGG background data so they can be assured that no one took shortcuts which broke the privacy regulations. And the judge seemed to be siding with them on that request....

Agree. I think that the defense is going to go in this direction and if BK is found guilty at trial, then AT will appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court given that using IGG in this way is "murky"/unsettled law and thereby placing the Idaho Supreme Court in a position to rule on it based on this case.

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

Agree. I think that the defense is going to go in this direction and if BK is found guilty at trial, then AT will appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court given that using IGG in this way is "murky"/unsettled law and thereby placing the Idaho Supreme Court in a position to rule on it based on this case.

JMO

I’d say “good luck.” By now this has incredible precedent, from Golden State to probably a couple hundred cases later.

 

[10ofRods]

I agree with you.

But the defense is going at it a different way, and it kind of worries me. They seem to be saying that without IGG the state would not have been able to identify who BK was. All they had was unknown DNA from the sheath with no way to identify whose it wAs.

To do so they used IGG, but the process of doing that often breaks regulations of privacy, and IF SO it would be unfair/unethical to use that tainted information in a DP trial.

So the DT is asking for full transparency and all IGG background data so they can be assured that no one took shortcuts which broke the privacy regulations. And the judge seemed to be siding with them on that request....

But, in fact, there is no evidence that LE or the State or Othram broke any rules of privacy. Whatsoever. None presented. No evidence that the FBI did, either. Only evidence that some other people sometimes break the rules. It seems even more absurd to me this morning than it did yesterday.

Further, almost no cases of verified invasion of privacy have been committed by any of these mostly online services.

I guess worst case scenario is the Defense gets handed confidential medical information from the Kohberger found in Othram's database. This will show that the Othram Kohberger did in fact upload their own DNA results after clicking boxes saying they understood the forensic purpose of Othram.

That will be the end of of it. Judge likely knows this too. Judge has probably already seen the Othram Kohberger results (but probably not Othram's digital forms - but it's very clear when one uploads at Othram what the purpose of the site is.

IMO.

 

[iamshadow21]

But, in fact, there is no evidence that LE or the State or Othram broke any rules of privacy. Whatsoever. None presented. No evidence that the FBI did, either. Only evidence that some other people sometimes break the rules. It seems even more absurd to me this morning than it did yesterday.

Further, almost no cases of verified invasion of privacy have been committed by any of these mostly online services.

I guess worst case scenario is the Defense gets handed confidential medical information from the Kohberger found in Othram's database. This will show that the Othram Kohberger did in fact upload their own DNA results after clicking boxes saying they understood the forensic purpose of Othram.

That will be the end of of it. Judge likely knows this too. Judge has probably already seen the Othram Kohberger results (but probably not Othram's digital forms - but it's very clear when one uploads at Othram what the purpose of the site is.

IMO.

The witness argument seems really strange to me. Like saying, 'When I drive, sometimes I break the law and speed to get where I'm going faster. Therefore, these other people who drive could have been speeding when driving, too.'

Maybe that's me perceiving it wrongly, but that's how it strikes me. That just because the witness breaks the rules, we should assume others do. That's not how morality works. And it seems a pretty specious argument to try to make to a judge in a court of law.

MOO

 

[al66pine]

Testimony by T-Shirt???

WATCH THIS AGAIN: one of the #kayleegoncalves family members is wearing a t-shirt promoting the firing squad death penalty to court today. The black shirt says: #JUSTICEFORKAYLEE IDAHO HOUSE BILL 186 SHOTS FIRED

https://twitter.com/x/status/1692644469357895936

.

@arielilane Thanks for you post w the twitter/X.

Still catching up on yesterday's posts.
Thinking it was a hypo Q, earlier this a.m. I posted* a response to a post by @Sundog.
Curious to know what if anything happened re actual t-shirt w message.
Of course yesterday was hearing on pretrial motions, NOT trial. ETA: court may have different dules or orders re decorum, that is, perhaps more lax for pretrial hearings? IDK.

Back to reading, to try to catch up.

_________________
* 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

 

[jepop]

I think it's likely that the defense will submit pretty much the same thing on September 8th that they submitted earlier. Maybe some tweeks so it looks slightly different, out of respect for the court/judge.

But at yesterday's hearing on the motion to compel, the prosecution acknowledged that the first notice of alibi that the defense provided indicated that BK drove around all night. Okay, the prosecution said, then tell us where he went (presumably so the prosecution has time to verify before the trial). Inmyreply, the defense said that BK has the right to testify or not about his alibi defense, and at this time she had nothing more to say. She also stated that the defense may cross examine some witnesses for the prosecution in relation to BK's alibi. Note: This is all my paraphrasing.

So pretty much she said exactly the same thing that was in the notice of alibi defense already provided to the court. And the judge pretty much said, well, just provide information by September 8th if you are planning to have alibi witnesses.

So IMO, nothing has changed, and it isn't clear or not whether the defense can cross examine the state's witnesses in relation to BK's alibi defense. And the defense has no intention, IMO, of answering the state's question about where BK was driving in relation to the alibi defense statements already submitted.

So the defense just got another extension if they want it, to September 8th, with nothing compelled, except a new deadline.


ETA - I think the judge met his goal of having this all on the record, he gave another extension (that's two extensions now), and if this case goes to appeal he has covered his bases with respect to fairness to the defendant.

All JMO.

I think you could be missing the fact this isn't the same as the initial stipulated time extension. Which was done in good faith.Today the judge conceded the State's frustration over D's vaguaries and non-compliance as justified. Imoo.

D has until September the 8th to produce any expert witnesses in support of alibi. If not meeting appropriate ICR requirements by that date, D loses right to call witnesses in support of any alibi at trial.(without pleading good cause). As this is a decision of court and not a stipulation I think the judge will probably issue an order re alibi timing in the next few days.Moo

 

[Balthazar]

I agree with you.

But the defense is going at it a different way, and it kind of worries me. They seem to be saying that without IGG the state would not have been able to identify who BK was. All they had was unknown DNA from the sheath with no way to identify whose it wAs.

To do so they used IGG, but the process of doing that often breaks regulations of privacy, and IF SO it would be unfair/unethical to use that tainted information in a DP trial.

So the DT is asking for full transparency and all IGG background data so they can be assured that no one took shortcuts which broke the privacy regulations. And the judge seemed to be siding with them on that request....

BINGO!

 

[jepop]

Testimony by T-Shirt???

@arielilane Thanks for you post w the twitter/X.

Still catching up on yesterday's posts.
Thinking it was a hypo Q, earlier this a.m. I posted* a response to a post by @Sundog.
Curious to know what if anything happened re actual t-shirt w message.
Of course yesterday was hearing on pretrial motions, NOT trial. ETA: court may have different dules or orders re decorum, that is, perhaps more lax for pretrial hearings? IDK.

Back to reading, to try to catch up.

_________________
* 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

I think CoolCats posted something about this - well up thread though. Trial by Jury will have Judge controlled strict rules of decorum. Spectator would not be permitted to wear pro DP slogan shirt when in court in presence of jury and especially not if giving witness impact statement during sentencing phase (victim cannot influence sentencing jury's deliberations?). Moo

 

[Balthazar]

I see the DNA in this case a little differently. Nothing about this process should be secret.

I have also seen cases where DNA is given for one purpose and then used for another and that's a violation of the 4th amendment. It seems to me that BK's distant family member gave their DNA to a database for some other reason than identifying a family member for a crime. I even wonder if this situation could open up the family member who gave their DNA for other purposes to liability as well as the company which had the DNA profile should BK be found not guilty. Did the family member actually opt in for LE purposes or not? If not, this opens up a whole can of worms.

For example, a rape victim in San Francisco was identified for a 2016 property offense via her rape kit.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/San-Francisco-police-linked-a-woman-to-a-crime-16918673.php

This was later found to be a violation of the 4th amendment.

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/APPLYING-THE-FOURTH-AMENDMENT-WHEN-DNA-COLLECTED-FOR-ONE-PURPOSE.pdf

Is this situation a violation of BK's fourth amendment? It probably is.

Then there is the whole question of the technique used to identify BK:

IMO how DNA identifications are made in the future for criminal justice are going to need to be documented step by step with replicable results to be admissible in court. This process should be replicable to remove any question about exactly how the identification was made and if it was done correctly. Without this information, I don't think that the DNA in Kohberger's case should be admissible in court, unfortunately.

I don't understand why the prosecution in this case cannot get and give this information to the defense. It is a straight forward process with a beginning, middle and end. That it is finite tells me it is possible for the information to be documented even now and it should be possible for both the prosecution and the defense to send BK's DNA to another lab AND the same lab the prosecution used as well and get the exact same results from both labs. If the results cannot be replicated, then there is a problem and the DNA testing cannot be trusted. To me this is a simple straightforward question. Was the testing done correctly and can it be replicated? If not, it should not stand as evidence. If the prosecution cannot give the defense information proving the testing was done correctly, then unfortunately, it should not be admissible.

 

[Sundog]

I think you could be missing the fact this isn't the same as the initial stipulated time extension.

<snipped for focus>

It amounts to the same thing, IMO.

It is good for the judge to have it on record that he gave the defense more time to comply with the alibi rule if they plan to use it, and to remind the defense that if they don't do so by September 8th, then they are unable to call alibi witnesses, other than BK, of course.

 

[Balthazar]

MOO The prosecution staying inside too narrow of a local murder case frame work.
MOO The prosecution thinking the appeal is where these constitutuonal issues will come up, but no, it's happening now.

I agree 100%. MOO.

 

[Sundog]

I think CoolCats posted something about this - well up thread though. Trial by Jury will have Judge controlled strict rules of decorum. Spectator would not be permitted to wear pro DP slogan shirt when in court in presence of jury and especially not if giving witness impact statement during sentencing phase (victim cannot influence sentencing jury's deliberations?). Moo

A family member of the victim is not supposed to make comments about their opinion for or against the death penalty when they provide impact statements during the sentencing phase of the case, but if they do so, then the judge will have ordered/or order the jury to disregard any such statement, according to Idaho Code and Instructions to Jury in death penalty case.