4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

[flowershop]

Did anyone notice BK's "steepled" hands at the start of today's hearing? I have heard this called the "power pose" before. Just confirms what many of us have said about BK all along; he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.

 

[iamshadow21]

No disagreements with what you said. I just wonder if this would be sustainable in the long run. Can he behave himself? Would it get to a point where she would decide to no longer defend him?

She's one of the few death penalty qualified attorneys in the state. Having a client who oozes menace comes with the territory. That said, I doubt he'll cross the line with her. I think he's self-interested enough to realise that would not serve him well in his particular situation.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

That doesn't explain why he saw it next to MM's right side but later it was stated it was found half under MM and half under the covers. We discussed this in a previous thread - I remember wondering, if MM were lying prone, how did the sheath wind up partially underneath her? This inconsistency is problematic, IMO.

How is it problematic? The simplest description, in the short version of the PCA was 'next to MM's right side.' That is a short, simple description.

But in the longer version, it is described with more detail--->>>partially under right side of MM's body, partially under the covers. None of this negates the shorter description----it just adds more info.

It is not inconsistent. It is not conflicting information. Thus, not problematic.

During the trial, there will be certified forensic photos, showing EXACTLY where the sheath was found.

 

[katydid23]

I'm not implying anything other than we have somewhat contradictory information. I'm fact oriented. Either the sheath was lying next to MM's right side or it was partially under her and the blanket. If Payne first saw it when the investigator removed the blanket, why did he describe it as lying by her right side if it was, in fact partially under her? Why the difference in description?

" Either the sheath was lying next to MM's right side or it was partially under her and the blanket."

OR " the sheath was lying next to MM's right side AND it was partially under her and the blanket."

Both things can be true. These facts are not in conflict with each other.

 

[katydid23]

Obviously, I know we don't have the discovery. I'm just pointing out we have somewhat contradictory or at minimum inconsistent information. We don't know why that is, yet. And no, I don't expect people here can answer this question since none of us have seen the actual crime scene. I'm just making note of something I noticed.

It is not inconsistent, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

Eventually, if the case goes to trial, we'll get an answer to my question. I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill when this is a simple inconsistency I'm wondering about, nothing more, nothing less. It implies nothing whatsoever about LE. MOO.

Ok, I will agree that a mountain is being made out of a molehill....

 

[katydid23]

Then you must believe that "next to" means the same as "under."

Yes, if it is partially 'underneath' then it is also 'next to. ' The visible portion would be described as 'next to. '

 

[katydid23]

I wondered about "what happens to witnesses after they testify" too, Balthazar.

What normally happens to them? What and why is there concern or interest?

Usually there are some instructions for the witnesses after they testify. Can they now sit in and watch the trial?
Are they likely to be recalled? Can they be interviewed?

In a high profile case especially, the judge may set some boundaries.

 

[katydid23]

Maybe she will ask for the witnesses to be sequestered.

I have not seen witnesses sequestered, but have seen them be restricted in various ways. They can be asked not to do media interviews until trial is over. Not to come sit in the trial audience unless they are dismissed from further testimony, etc.

 

[katydid23]

Thank you for this. Okay so Vargas reached out to people in the genetic genealogy community over the weekend and backtracked on her sworn testimony. Interesting. Sounds like the GG people contacted the FBI who did the work and they questioned her about it and she apparently told the agents that some of what she signed in her sworn declaration she did not fully read. Thompson says they are in the process of documenting this for Taylor. And, the only reason she was contacted was because she was retracting some of what she testified to.

Did I get that right? It's hard to hear every word clearly.

Interesting exchanges for sure.... At about 5 minutes in, after AT said they wanted to waive speedy trial rights, the judge asked BK several specific questions about the decision, and afterwards, Judge asks AT to sign the waiver form and have BK sign it as well.

She then tells the court that she didn't bring any documents with her, and gave him an excuse/explanation, but I couldn't really hear what the reasons were. Anyway, the judge then tells her that he happened to grab a template of some kind that they could use, so the defendant could sign off on the decision. I thought that was interesting that he thought to do that and didn't expect the defense to be prepared with the paperwork already.

 

[al66pine]

"Sequestering" or "Restricting" Witnesses?
@rainbowshummingbird said:
"Maybe she will ask for the witnesses to be sequestered."

I have not seen witnesses sequestered, but have seen them be restricted in various ways. They can be asked not to do media interviews or post on social media platforms until trial is over. Not to come sit in the trial audience unless they are dismissed from further testimony, etc.

@katydid23 @rainbowshummingbird

Maybe one or both of you were referring this concept?

"Idaho Rules of Evidence" Terminology =
Excluding Witnesses.

"Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 615. Excluding witnesses.
"(a) At a party's request, the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses' testimony. Or the court may do so on its own"

"But this rule does not authorize excluding:
"(1) a party who is a natural person;
"(2) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party's representative by its attorney;
"(3) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party's claim or defense; or
"(4) a crime victim whose exclusion is prohibited under Article 1, Section 22 of the Idaho Constitution."

I.R.E. 615. Exclusion of Witnesses. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

 

[al66pine]

Excluding Witnesses.
"Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 615. Excluding witnesses"
is relatively short & sweet.

For anyone who wants further rationale or explanation, below is a link to 4 page article from a law journal.

Excerpt: "The rule on sequestration (exclusion) of witnesses is designed to avoid fabrication and collusion.... Special rules apply regarding expert witnesses and “support persons.” The contours of such special rules are explored within the Federal Rules of Evidence, state rules of evidence, state appellate and supreme court decisions, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions." (sbm)
__________________________
"Sequestration of Lay Witnesses
and Experts"
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 32:447–50, 2004

 

[katydid23]

Excluding Witnesses.
"Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 615. Excluding witnesses"
is relatively short & sweet.

For anyone who wants further rationale or explanation, below is a link to 4 page article from a law journal.

Excerpt: "The rule on sequestration (exclusion) of witnesses is designed to avoid fabrication and collusion.... Special rules apply regarding expert witnesses and “support persons.” The contours of such special rules are explored within the Federal Rules of Evidence, state rules of evidence, state appellate and supreme court decisions, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions." (sbm)
__________________________
"Sequestration of Lay Witnesses
and Experts"
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 32:447–50, 2004

I think this sequestration is BEFORE they testify. I thought the question for the judge was about the witnesses AFTER they testified?

 

[Boxer]

Did anyone notice BK's "steepled" hands at the start of today's hearing? I have heard this called the "power pose" before. Just confirms what many of us have said about BK all along; he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.

Yes, the "steeple of power" of corporate folklore.

 

[katydid23]

Early chatter went this way, before it became known that DM’s room was on the second level. There was unconfirmed talk that DM saw a masked Ninja, and was so frightened that she left her room and spent the rest of the night locked in BF’s room.

I think one of the state's biggest hurdles will be the actions or inactions of DM after she saw the masked man in the middle of the night. So many questions arise...

 

[Cindizzi]

https://x.com/morganromerotv/status/1694509859511967892?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

 

[Cindizzi]

[…]

Taylor also said her team will be filing a motion to strike the death penalty, which has remained on the table since June 27.
"It places Mr. Kohberger in a position where he has to choose his rights," Taylor said. She told the court she believed her client would have to choose between a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel. She also put the court on notice that the judge should expect an additional motion to ban cameras in the courtroom.
Later in the hearing, in an unexpected twist, Judge said he was summoned for jury duty in the case.
"It's odd," Judge said, referring to being selected. He asked both the defense and prosecution if they were comfortable with him declining jury duty and continuing to preside over the case. Both agreed.
Kohberger's next hearing is Sept. 1, where the defense will fight to dismiss his grand jury indictment. A new trial date will be set following that hearing.

[…]

Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger waives right to speedy trial

Kohberger's defense plans on asking the court to strike the death penalty and ban cameras in the courtroom.

www.ktvb.com

 

[Cindizzi]

https://x.com/abbydavisktvb/status/1694487035384656052?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

 

[Cindizzi]

[…]

Taylor also said her team will be filing a motion to strike the death penalty, which has remained on the table since June 27.
"It places Mr. Kohberger in a position where he has to choose his rights," Taylor said. She told the court she believed her client would have to choose between a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel. She also put the court on notice that the judge should expect an additional motion to ban cameras in the courtroom.
Later in the hearing, in an unexpected twist, Judge said he was summoned for jury duty in the case.
"It's odd," Judge said, referring to being selected. He asked both the defense and prosecution if they were comfortable with him declining jury duty and continuing to preside over the case. Both agreed.
Kohberger's next hearing is Sept. 1, where the defense will fight to dismiss his grand jury indictment. A new trial date will be set following that hearing.

[…]

Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger waives right to speedy trial

Kohberger's defense plans on asking the court to strike the death penalty and ban cameras in the courtroom.

www.ktvb.com

This article mentions that Judge Judge received a Jury summons for this trial, which I thought was pretty wild.
i Saw this tweet earlier today and wondered if it was a joke.
Of course it’s all moot now.

https://x.com/johnwebbtv/status/1694464111143461218?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

I wonder how many summons were mailed out.

Where I live ( Colorado) you have no idea which trial you might be chosen for until the day you show up.

The recent Letecia Stauch trial in my town there was a prospective Juror who was asked if he knew any of the parties or witnesses replied that he actually worked for the District Attorney’s office. Lol

He was dismissed. Guess it happens.

 

[al66pine]

Witness Sequestration or Exclusion.

I think this sequestration is BEFORE they testify. I thought the question for the judge was about the witnesses AFTER they testified?

@katydid23 TY for responding.

Yes, the ID Rule of Evidence my earlier post linked relates to excluding witnesses from courtroom BEFORE they testify.
In citing & quoting an ID rule, did not intend to suggest your post was inaccurate.

Trying to catch up on thread, I was reading backwards, & did not read far back enough to catch original context about potential restrictions AFTER a witness testifies.

Again, thx.