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

[Balthazar]

[snipped by me]

This is from an earlier post you made. Is this the inconsistency you are referring to? If so, I don't view these statements as inconsistent.

Payne saw it (personal knowledge)

Baker was "told" this (by Idaho State Police)


View attachment 442585

Yes. These and also this which is also inconsistent with the other two documents:

"The sheath was face down and partially under both Madison’s body and the comforter on the bed."

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

The 3 documents are inconsistent in describing how the sheath was positioned and unclear as to who found the sheath, although I believe it was probably someone with ISP CSI - it's not real clear. That's all I noticed.

 

[iamshadow21]

Anyone on here an expert in handwriting analysis? I had mine done at a Mothers Day out, many years ago by the only top handwriting analyst in the nation. He was spot on about my personality. Just a thought.

Vertboten, unless someone is genuinely a handwriting analyst, qualified, verified, and part of the case.

ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 70

ADMIN NOTE: Take notice folks ... Websleuths will not tolerate disparaging comments about other members. If you engage in rude personal attacks against another member, you will receive a minimum 1 week Time Out. Depending on the consequences of such attacks, there may be a permanent loss of...

www.websleuths.com

 

[sassyblue]

I'm glad I don't need to buy a hat now. But I'm sad for the victim's families. I hope they can make their peace and ready themselves for the long haul. It's going to be a terrible roller-coaster ride for them.

 

[Balthazar]

The defense would like to hold off scheduling the trial until after the Sept. 1st date.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1694462871026245874

I wonder what is meant by this:

They are also filing 2 motions against cameras in the courtroom and what happens to witnesses after they testify.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I wonder what is meant by this:

They are also filing 2 motions against cameras in the courtroom and what happens to witnesses after they testify.

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?

 

[Jurisprudence]

Yes. These and also this which is also inconsistent with the other two documents:

"The sheath was face down and partially under both Madison’s body and the comforter on the bed."

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

The 3 documents are inconsistent in describing how the sheath was positioned and unclear as to who found the sheath, although I believe it was probably someone with ISP CSI - it's not real clear. That's all I noticed.

Sorry, I still don't see the inconsistency. Here we have a Motion for protective Order and the prosecuting atty and the special asst AG have simply provided to the court more detail than that which was included in the pca to swear out an arrest warrant. Here we learn that the sheath was face down, the significance being (imo) that the button snap from which they found the single source DNA wasn't exposed and therefore was not accidentally touched or compromised.

jmo

 

[Balthazar]

I believe it is only your opinion that it's an inconsistency. It's my opinion that all of the quoted facts can be consistent.

The sheath was never described by anyone as being entirely under the body and covers nor entirely on her right side. The paltry facts that we have certainly don't preclude the fact that the sheath was partially under the body and covers on her right side. As pointed out previously, the photos will clarify.

MOOs are especially important when posting information inferring LE's errors in an investigation. Obviously, my MOO.

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.

 

[iamshadow21]

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?

Maybe they don't want to allow them to sit in on the trial. Can they call a prosecution witness as a hostile witness for the defense after they've testified for the prosecution?

MOO

 

[twall]

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?

Apparently after Ms. Vargas' testimony she got a visit from 2 FBI agents! Around 14:00 in video of today's hearing.

 

[Chloegirl]

Bryan Kohberger waives right to a speedy trial, plans to file motion to strike death penalty

Because Kohberger plans to file several new motions, his trial will not begin on Oct. 2 as previously scheduled.

www.krem.com

Motion to strike the DP?

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

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?

Maybe she will ask for the witnesses to be sequestered.

 

[Chloegirl]

Apparently after Ms. Vargas' testimony she got a visit from 2 FBI agents! Around 14:00 in video of today's hearing.

Is it me or did I see him sign with his right hand this time?

 

[Jurisprudence]

Maybe they don't want to allow them to sit in on the trial. Can they call a prosecution witness as a hostile witness for the defense after they've testified for the prosecution?

MOO

[BBM] MOO, yes. On cross they are somewhat restricted to matters that are raised on direct. So if the defense is looking to explore a completely different line of questioning they could call the person in their case. If the court declares the witness hostile the defense is typically permitted to ask leading questions. No idea how Idaho works. IMO things are pretty much the same across the board, with only minor variations here and there.

I think AT said in one of her papers she was planning to call a person she assumed was a prosecution witness. The prosecution responded that it has no intention of calling this person (it revolved around the training records argument this is why I think one of these people is an officer whose training records she obtained). So, it's anyone's guess but it looks like she plans to cross some prosecution witnesses and call others. This is why it's important for the prosecution to know what his non-alibi alibi evidence is.

jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

I believe it is only your opinion that it's an inconsistency. It's my opinion that all of the quoted facts can be consistent.

The sheath was never described by anyone as being entirely under the body and covers nor entirely on her right side. The paltry facts that we have certainly don't preclude the fact that the sheath was partially under the body and covers on her right side. As pointed out previously, the photos will clarify.

MOOs are especially important when posting information inferring LE's errors in an investigation. Obviously, my MOO.

Agree.

Both descriptions are correct.

The sheath was only partially under MM and her comforter. Part of the sheath would have been visible next to MM's right side as described by LE.

June 16 - Motion for Protective Order

 

[iamshadow21]

[BBM] MOO, yes. On cross they are somewhat restricted to matters that are raised on direct. So if the defense is looking to explore a completely different line of questioning they could call the person in their case. If the court declares the witness hostile the defense is typically permitted to ask leading questions. No idea how Idaho works. IMO things are pretty much the same across the board, with only minor variations here and there.

I think AT said in one of her papers she was planning to call a person she assumed was a prosecution witness. The prosecution responded that it has no intention of calling this person (it revolved around the training records argument this is why I think one of these people is an officer whose training records she obtained). So, it's anyone's guess but it looks like she plans to cross some prosecution witnesses and call others. This is why it's important for the prosecution to know what his non-alibi alibi evidence is.

jmo

I think they're going to try to call DM. Besides the sheath, DM's eyewitness account of seeing the intruder is what they've been agitating hardest against.

MOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Apparently after Ms. Vargas' testimony she got a visit from 2 FBI agents! Around 14:00 in video of today's hearing.

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.

 

[Balthazar]

Sorry, I still don't see the inconsistency. Here we have a Motion for protective Order and the prosecuting atty and the special asst AG have simply provided to the court more detail than that which was included in the pca to swear out an arrest warrant. Here we learn that the sheath was face down, the significance being (imo) that the button snap from which they found the single source DNA wasn't exposed and therefore was not accidentally touched or compromised.

jmo

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

 

[Jurisprudence]

Bryan Kohberger waives right to a speedy trial, plans to file motion to strike death penalty

Because Kohberger plans to file several new motions, his trial will not begin on Oct. 2 as previously scheduled.

www.krem.com

Motion to strike the DP?

In this link is Vallow's motion to declare defendant not death eligible. Motions filed in Vallow Daybell case, new developments and alibi

MOO this argument is a real reach with BK. She'll probably also make the unconstitutional argument made in Vallow, probably copy it change the names.

Here's an article that discusses this. The Vallow docs are off the Idaho page now.

Vallow: The death penalty should be dismissed because of media saturation, multiple discovery violations by the government, Vallow's mental status and the inability of the state to effectively administer the death penalty should the jury decide to impose it, the defense motion said.

The Court: "The court concludes here that as an appropriate discovery sanction, the state will be precluded from seeking the death penalty at trial, and the state's May 2, 2022, notice of intent to seek the death penalty will be stricken. To be clear, the court does not impose the sanction to penalize the state but rather to ensure the constitutional right of the defendant is protected, allowing for a reasonable defense to be prepared for this trial," Boyce said in an oral ruling.

(They prevailed because of the timing of the discovery (phone calls IIRC)

Lori Vallow won't face the death penalty if convicted in the deaths of her children, judge rules

Lori Vallow and her husband, Chad Daybell, face multiple counts of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the deaths of 7-year-old Joshua "JJ" Vallow and 16-year-old Tylee Ryan.

abc7chicago.com

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

I believe both can be (and likely are) true. And, I don't understand the fixation. I see no inconsistent statements at all. You do, and that's okay. I think it will become clear to you at trial if this is televised. MOO

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Is it me or did I see him sign with his right hand this time?

Yup!