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

[girlhasnoname]

Kohberger is prepared to wave his right to a speedy trial. Judge Judge is asking Kohberger if that is what he wants. Kohberger has responded “yes” “You sure you want to do this?” - Judge “Absolutely” - Kohberger

https://twitter.com/x/status/1694459974561509799

Yep, called that the first day we found out about a hearing.

AT & Company are nowhere near ready. They've spent the last months trying to get things thrown out of technicalities and 100's of year old precedents. Didn't work. Now they are going to have to present a real defense.

Yeah, good luck with that.

moo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Agree. I think the prosecution is tired of the games quite frankly.

jmo

Yes and aren't we all?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Like a dog with a bone.

MOO

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082223-Reply-to-States-Objection-to-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss-Grand-Jury.pdf

Interesting signature

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082323-Waiver-of-Speedy-Trial.pdf

GAAAH, I knew it'd be a 20+ pager on the Motion to Dismiss the GJ Indictment once I saw J Logsdon's name on it.

I feel confident the GJ will stand, why don't they spend their time preparing a defense case for their client instead of inundating the Court with the baseless Motions? I think AT & Company are intent on overturning some long held statues, they want the recognition, why don't they just begin to prepare a reasonable defense for their client instead of trying to make history?

moo

 

[jepop]

If I had to lay a bet I would bet it doesn't matter what the docs say because that sheath will have been photographed before anyone touched it.

Just a guess.

Yes, ofcourse it would have been photographed (in situ and at various other stages as expert forensic officers explored the crime scene -pulling back covers for example). And we have no reason to assume that the two rooms (and more) of the crime scene were not carefully documented by forensic officers. Moo

 

[jepop]

He does not have to be exactingly precise in the arrest warrant because the exact position of the sheath as opposed to the general location of near Maddie's body in the bed is not relevant to the arrest warrant. The fact that a knife sheath was recovered from the bed in close vicinity of Maddie's body IS relevant, and the most relevant thing is that the sheath in that proximity to the body was found to have DNA on it. The arrest warrant and the search warrant are not police reports nor are they forensic tech reports. They are summaries. If a knife sheath is half under her and half sticking out to the side of her, then for simplicity's sake some people are summarizing that by describing the part they see sticking out next to her as simply "next to." They don't have to put in details that are unnecessary for the purposes of the warrant. Heck, neither the arrest warrant nor the search warrant even mention where Ethan's body was found other than "Also in the room was a male, later identified as Ethan Chapin, hereafter, "Chapin". "

The point you would need to worry about is if the Prosecution has the information wrong. And from their June 16 State Motion for Protective Order, it is clear that the Prosecution has exact and correct information.

"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/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

And the Defense has the forensics reports and the actual police reports from the crime scene processing that day. And if that information on there wasn't exact and correct, we would have seen the Defense filing motions about it by now. And they have DEFINITELY gone through the immediate crime scene reports by now, even if they haven't made their way through all the tons of other stuff.

Exactly. They are summaries to support two warrants. Context matters. They are not forensic reports of the crime scene! I've said it before but I fail to see or comprehend the issue that was raised.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

I believe so, although it's unusual:

<snipped>
When a witness is declared as hostile, he is being accused of contradicting his pre-trial statement while on the witness stand. When an attorney suspects a witness of being hostile, he makes an application to the judge, absent the jury, asking the judge to treat the witness as hostile. If the judge agrees, then the jury is made aware that the witness has made a statement that significantly differed from, or contradicted, the one he had made previously.

If the witness denies this, he is then asked to step down from the stand. The person who took the witness’ pre-trial statement is then asked to come to the stand and prove to the judge that the statement was made. The witness is then asked to return to the stand, and his prior statement is shown to him so that he can identify it as his own. Specifically, the witness is shown the section of the statement that he is accused of contradicting.

If the witness agrees that a contradiction has been made, then the judge instructs the jury to disregard his testimony, and the witness is discredited. If, however, he continues to deny a contradiction, then his statement is read into evidence. This means that his statement is read to the jury as proof of the fact that he had made a contradictory statement. Once the statement is read into evidence, then the judge clarifies to the jury that what is contained in the witness’ written statement does not prove the facts in the statement. Instead, it is merely evidence showing the witness’ credibility, or lack thereof.
Hostile Witness - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes.

 

[jepop]

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.

Oh well, I disagree that the descriptions used in the warrants are problematic as you've stated in other posts and that there is some sort of issue/inconsistency.[ * ETA - that is your opinion and not a fact]. The inconsistency as you see it (in your opinon) is logically explained by others Imo. I'm agreeing to disagree that there is any notable issue - and whatever implications are being suggested. Moo

 

[Cool Cats]

Bryan Kohberger's trial postponed after he waived right to speedy trial - Internewscast Journal

MOSCOW, Idaho — The trial for a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death late last year will not happen as scheduled on Oct. 2.

internewscast.com

Something seems different with his expression... can't put my finger on it.....From August 23rd, 2023

 

[jepop]

GAAAH, I knew it'd be a 20+ pager on the Motion to Dismiss the GJ Indictment once I saw J Logsdon's name on it.

I feel confident the GJ will stand, why don't they spend their time preparing a defense case for their client instead of inundating the Court with the baseless Motions? I think AT & Company are intent on overturning some long held statues, they want the recognition, why don't they just begin to prepare a reasonable defense for their client instead of trying to make history?

moo

What's annoying to me is that this was filed Tuesday (22nd Aug) by the look of it, and the State now has a week to read, digest and respond to meet the deadline for the Sept 1 hearing. The hearing was originally set for Sept 1 because speedy trial was still in force. Now that it's not, why does the P still have to rush its response to this new and lengthy filing? I can see why the D wanted to keep the Sept 1 date for Motion to dismiss even though it was no longer strictly necessary. Imo, it is to their considerable advantage to do so and to the State's disadvantage. Once the State has read and considered this latest filing I wonder if they will move to have the hearing changed to a more reasonable date in order to be given fair time to respond. Moo

I would think the State will take note of quoted paragraph below which suggests there is yet more to be filed.

I don't understand how the suggestion of more to come makes sense. If yet another filing has not already been filed by the D (by 23rd Aug), yet it is referred to here, then either the D are planning to ask the Court to stave off on a decision on the basis of briefs filed for Sept 1 hearing in lieu of this material, or they will file it some time closer to Sept 1, giving the State no adequate time to respond. Moo

My emphasis

"First, Mr. Kohberger disagrees. Yes, the cases Counsel cited are for trial juries. However, there is simply no credible argument to be made that the State may mislead a grand jury as to the standard of proof and rely on the Indictment it procures. Additionally, it makes little sense that a defendant deprived of his right to counsel for a preliminary hearing will doom his eventual conviction, but a defendant given a grand jury told it may indict a “ham sandwich” has no recourse .See, Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970). To deprive the accused of a fundamental right has natural consequences. Second, Mr. Kohberger will demonstrate in a separate motion the prejudice that resulted from the erroneous instruction in this matter"

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082223-Reply-to-States-Objection-to-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss-Grand-Jury.pdf

 

[katydid23]

Bryan Kohberger's trial postponed after he waived right to speedy trial - Internewscast Journal

MOSCOW, Idaho — The trial for a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death late last year will not happen as scheduled on Oct. 2.

internewscast.com

Something seems different with his expression... can't put my finger on it.....From August 23rd, 2023
View attachment 442670

I thought his demeanour in court seemed different as well. He was very emphatic and loud when he answered the judge. He seemed ultra confident. Looked and acted more like an attorney than a defendant, IMO.

 

[NextSprint]

[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

The fact that at least a few people on this thread see this point differently suggests a jury of twelve might also…

 

[NextSprint]

My initial reaction: is he 12?

My second reaction: were his hands shackled?

That is a very stilted signature. Stunted, stilted.

Jmo

Possible it was taken with one of those horrific anti-stab digital pens… They’re not conducive to a nice signature at all!

 

[NextSprint]

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?

Judge Judge raised issue during Friday’s hearings about witnesses hearing each other’s testimonies. I have a sneaking feeling it’s about that; so basically witnesses would give their testimony and leave the courtroom.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Bryan Kohberger's trial postponed after he waived right to speedy trial - Internewscast Journal

MOSCOW, Idaho — The trial for a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death late last year will not happen as scheduled on Oct. 2.

internewscast.com

Something seems different with his expression... can't put my finger on it.....From August 23rd, 2023
View attachment 442670

Not that confident, stern look like usual to me. He seemed nervous to me for the first time in court today.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I thought his demeanour in court seemed different as well. He was very emphatic and loud when he answered the judge. He seemed ultra confident. Looked and acted more like an attorney than a defendant, IMO.

Hah, and I saw it completely different. I think he was trying to come across confident, but he appeared nervous, dare I say 'scared' for the very first time to me. Especially sitting at the table before the Judge came on the bench. No interaction between AT & BK at all.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

What's annoying to me is that this was filed Tuesday (22nd Aug) by the look of it, and the State now has a week to read, digest and respond to meet the deadline for the Sept 1 hearing. The hearing was originally set for Sept 1 because speedy trial was still in force. Now that it's not, why does the P still have to rush its response to this new and lengthy filing? I can see why the D wanted to keep the Sept 1 date for Motion to dismiss even though it was no longer strictly necessary. Imo, it is to their considerable advantage to do so and to the State's disadvantage. Once the State has read and considered this latest filing I wonder if they will move to have the hearing changed to a more reasonable date in order to be given fair time to respond. Moo

I would think the State will take note of quoted paragraph below which suggests there is yet more to be filed.

I don't understand how the suggestion of more to come makes sense. If yet another filing has not already been filed by the D (by 23rd Aug), yet it is referred to here, then either the D are planning to ask the Court to stave off on a decision on the basis of briefs filed for Sept 1 hearing in lieu of this material, or they will file it some time closer to Sept 1, giving the State no adequate time to respond. Moo

My emphasis

"First, Mr. Kohberger disagrees. Yes, the cases Counsel cited are for trial juries. However, there is simply no credible argument to be made that the State may mislead a grand jury as to the standard of proof and rely on the Indictment it procures. Additionally, it makes little sense that a defendant deprived of his right to counsel for a preliminary hearing will doom his eventual conviction, but a defendant given a grand jury told it may indict a “ham sandwich” has no recourse .See, Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970). To deprive the accused of a fundamental right has natural consequences. Second, Mr. Kohberger will demonstrate in a separate motion the prejudice that resulted from the erroneous instruction in this matter"

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082223-Reply-to-States-Objection-to-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss-Grand-Jury.pdf

AT did respond that she was notifying the Court of upcoming motions to strike the DP sentence. She said (paraphrased @ the 7:45 mark in the CourtTV video) "Why should BK have to choose between a right to a speedy trial and effectiveness of council". She said they were in no way ready to proceed on Oct 2nd.

MOO

 

[jepop]

AT did respond that she was notifying the Court of upcoming motions to strike the DP sentence. She said (paraphrased @ the 7:45 mark in the CourtTV video) "Why should BK have to choose between a right to a speedy trial and effectiveness of council". She said they were in no way ready to proceed on Oct 2nd.

MOO

Oh yes, I agree. I'm just referring to the Motion to Dismiss hearing still schedued for Sept 1. In the D's latest filing for that they suggest another motion will be filed - why put that in a filing related to a Motion to Dismiss unless they intend to use it in support of the Motion to Dismiss? My point being that it's hardly fair and adeqauate if this new Motion is filed in the next few days with the intention that it is to support the D's case for dismissal to be heard Sept 1. When does the State get a chance to respond to this so far unnamed motion by Sept 1?

 

[girlhasnoname]

I bet the witness for the Defense GV on IGG/DNA wishes she had not gotten on the stand and said she knew of instances where LE/FBI used back door loop holes in IGG testing.

Seems like she was paid a visit by the FBI concerning her statement. Prosecutor Bill Thompson addressed that as well in yesterdays hearing @ about the 19:20 mark. BT said he contacted investigators after learning GV retracted some of the information she testified to in court on IGG in some sort of media or social media platform. BT wanted to clear that up so they have correct information when they respond to the Defense's IGG DNA arguments.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Oh yes, I agree. I'm just referring to the Motion to Dismiss hearing still schedued for Sept 1. In the D's latest filing for that they suggest another motion will be filed - why put that in a filing related to a Motion to Dismiss unless they intend to use it in support of the Motion to Dismiss? My point being that it's hardly fair and adeqauate if this new Motion is filed in the next few days with the intention that it is to support the D's case for dismissal to be heard Sept 1. When does the State get a chance to respond to this so far unnamed motion by Sept 1?

The way I understood it is AT still insists on the Motion to Dismiss the GJ indictment on Sept 1st, along with a new Motion to Strike the DP. AT is also seeking to set a court schedule on Sept 1st not that the Speedy Trial has been waived.

I agree it's not really adequate timing for the State to respond, but I have no doubt that they will be prepared to do so.

MOO

 

[jepop]

I bet the witness for the Defense GV on IGG/DNA wishes she had not gotten on the stand and said she knew of instances where LE/FBI used back door loop holes in IGG testing.

Seems like she was paid a visit by the FBI concerning her statement. Prosecutor Bill Thompson addressed that as well in yesterdays hearing @ about the 19:20 mark. BT said he contacted investigators after learning GV retracted some of the information she testified to in court on IGG in some sort of media or social media platform. BT wanted to clear that up so they have correct information when they respond to the Defense's IGG DNA arguments.

MOO

What in the name of...GV retracted part of her testimony on social media. Good that BT raised. If true, that's one professional witness the D has there...Moo